[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180702222105.GA2438@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 15:21:05 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"Wangkai (Kevin,C)" <wangkai86@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] fs/dcache: Track & limit # of negative dentries
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:18:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> In the [5/6] changelog it is mentioned that a large number of -ve
> dentries can lead to oom-killings. This sounds bad - -ve dentries
> should be trivially reclaimable and we shouldn't be oom-killing in such
> a situation.
>
> Dumb question: do we know that negative dentries are actually
> worthwhile? Has anyone checked in the past couple of decades? Perhaps
> our lookups are so whizzy nowadays that we don't need them?
I can't believe that's true. Have you looked at strace of a typical
program startup recently?
$ strace -o ls.out ls
$ grep -c ENOENT ls.out
10
There's a few duplicates in there (6 accesses to /etc/ld.so.nohwcap), so
we definitely want those negative entries.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists