Re: 2.1.99 is less rusty

Rik van Riel (
Sun, 3 May 1998 09:30:03 +0200 (MET DST)

On Sun, 3 May 1998, Bill Metzenthen wrote:
> According to
> > 2.0 performed better becase some disk blocks got cached.
> > 2.1 performes worse because the dcache gets plumped but not slimmed.
> Maybe, I don't claim to understand why the rusting effect occurs...

It could still well be that other things are using
too much memory too, like the inodes and the file
structs. We really should reclaim them too...

> I don't know what causes the effect. People have suggested it is due
> to either memory fragmentation or cache memory not being freed. I
> have looked at the stuff available via /proc and SysRq but it didn't
> appear to particularly support either hypothesis.

There should be some clues in /proc/slabinfo, /proc/meminfo
and /proc/sys/kernel/{dentry-state,file-nr,inode-state}.
It could just as well be that your system uses/allocates
too many inodes or open files... (which we can't currently

> I don't have the time at the moment to get stuck into solving the
> problem myself so I have to hope that the people who have designed the
> stuff will fix it (if they feel so inclined and can find the time...).

We like seeing our code used by as many people as possible,
so we concentrate major effort into making it possible for
everybody to use it...
Ie: Yes, we do what we can to fix the bugs, although some
more detailed reports (complete with memory usage calculations)
_are_ welcome.
(When you figure out what we should change, we can get
straight to the code and fix stuff)

| Linux: - LinuxHQ MM-patches page | Scouting webmaster |
| - kswapd ask-him & complain-to guy | Vries cubscout leader |
| | <> |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to