lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d6a94c50701111812q64035fcdheeadfaaf0da9a68c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:12:41 +0800
From:	Aubrey <aubreylee@...il.com>
To:	"Roy Huang" <royhuang9@...il.com>
Cc:	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...l.org>,
	"Hua Zhong" <hzhong@...il.com>, "Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	kenneth.w.chen@...el.com, mjt@....msk.ru,
	"Robin Getz" <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org>
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT question

On 1/11/07, Roy Huang <royhuang9@...il.com> wrote:
> On a embedded systerm, limiting page cache can relieve memory
> fragmentation. There is a patch against 2.6.19, which limit every
> opened file page cache and total pagecache. When the limit reach, it
> will release the page cache overrun the limit.

The patch seems to work for me. But some suggestions in my mind:

1) Can we limit the total page cache, not the page cache per each file?
    think about if total memory is 128M, 10% of it is 12.8M, here if
one application is running, it can use 12.8M vfs cache, then the
performance will probably not be impacted. However, the current patch
limit the page cache per each file, which means if only one
application runs it can only use CONFIG_PAGE_LIMIT pages cache. It may
be small to the application.
------------------snip---------------
if (mapping->nrpages >= mapping->pages_limit)
               balance_cache(mapping);
------------------snip---------------

2) A percent number should be better to control the value. Can we add
a proc interface to make the value tunable?

Thanks,
-Aubrey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ