[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1284600107.20776.640.camel@nimitz>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:21:47 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Tim Pepper <lnxninja@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] update /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches documentation
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 09:12 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> I hear a customer's case. His server generates 3-80000+ new dentries per day
> and dentries will be piled up to 1000000+ in a month. This makes open()'s
> performance very bad because Hash-lookup will be heavy. (He has very big memory.)
>
> What we could ask him was
> - rewrite your application. or
> - reboot once in a month (and change hash size) or
> - drop_cache once in a month
>
> Because their servers cannot stop, he used drop_caches once in a month
> while his server is idle, at night. Changing HashSize cannot be a permanent
> fix because he may not stop the server for years.
That is a really interesting case.
They must have a *ton* of completely extra memory laying around. Do
they not have much page cache activity? It usually balances out the
dentry/inode caches.
Would this user be better off with a smaller dentry hash in general? Is
it special hardware that should _have_ a lower default hash size?
> For rare users who have 10000000+ of files and tons of free memory, drop_cache
> can be an emergency help.
In this case, though, would a WARN_ON() in an emergency be such a bad
thing? They evidently know what they're doing, and shouldn't be put off
by it.
-- Dave
--
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