Re: 2.4.16 memory badness (fixed?)

[Mike Galbraith]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Leigh Orf wrote:

> In a personal email, Mike Galbraith wrote to me:
>
> |   On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Leigh Orf wrote:
> |
> |   > inode_cache       439584 439586    512 62798 62798    1
> |   > dentry_cache      454136 454200    128 15140 15140    1
> |
> |   I'd try moving shrink_[id]cache_memory to the very top of vmscan.c::shrink_caches.
> |
> |   	-Mike
>
> Mike,
>
> I tried what you suggested starting with a stock 2.4.16 kernel, and it
> did fix the problem with 2.4.16 ENOMEM being returned.
>
> Now with that change and after updatedb runs, here's what the memory
> situation looks like. Note inode_cache and dentry_cache are almost
> nothing. Dunno if that's a good thing or not, but I'd definitely

Almost nothing isn't particularly good after updatedb ;-)

> consider this for a patch.

No, but those do need faster pruning imho.  The growth rate can be
really really fast at times.

	-Mike