On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 03:05:38AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2002 02:45 -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 08:36:13PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > Matt, do you see any suspiciously high numbers in
> > > /proc/slabinfo ?
> >
> > What would be suspiciously high? The four biggest numbers I see are:
> >
> > inode_cache 139772 204760 480 25589 25595 1
> > dentry_cache 184024 326550 128 10885 10885 1
> > buffer_head 166620 220480 96 4487 5512 1
> > size-64 102388 174876 64 2964 2964 1
Pretty much the same as Bruce here, mostly same culprits anyway:
inode_cache 84352 90800 480 11340 11350 1 : 124 62
dentry_cache 240060 240060 128 8002 8002 1 : 252 126
buffer_head 215417 227760 96 5694 5694 1 : 252 126
size-32 209954 209954 32 1858 1858 1 : 252 126
> The other question would of course be whether we are calling into
> shrink_dcache_memory() enough, but that is an issue for Matt to
> see by testing "postal" with and without the patch, and keeping an
> eye on the slab caches.
Patch applied cleanly, and I redid the 'test'. I've attached the output
of free and /proc/slabinfo, *.1 is without patch, *.2 is with. In both
cases postal was left to run for about 35 minutes by which time it had
delivered around ~54000 messages locally.
Overall, with the patch, the large numbers in /proc/slabinfo are *still*
large, but not as large as without the patch. Overall memory usage still
seems similar.
Matt
-- "Phased plasma rifle in a forty-watt range?" "Hey, just what you see, pal"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:31 EST