Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?

Hi,

On Thursday 18 October 2007 16:24, Vasily Averin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> could anybody explain how "inactive" may be much greater than "cached"?
> stress test (http://weather.ou.edu/~apw/projects/stress/) that writes into
> removed files in cycle puts the node to the following state:
>
> MemTotal: 16401648 kB
> MemFree: 636644 kB
> Buffers: 1122556 kB
> Cached: 362880 kB
> SwapCached: 700 kB
> Active: 1604180 kB
> Inactive: 13609828 kB
>
> At the first glance memory should be freed on file closing, nobody refers
> to file and ext3_delete_inode() truncates inode. We can see that memory is
> go away from "cached", however could somebody explain why it become
> "invalid" instead be freed? Who holds the references to these pages?

Buffers, swap cache, and anonymous.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?
    • From: Vasily Averin <[email protected]>

• References:
  • How Inactive may be much greather than cached?
    • From: Vasily Averin <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Patch](memory hotplug) Make kmem_cache_node for SLUB on memory online to avoid panic(take 3)
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC] remove netpoll receive code
• Previous by thread: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?
• Next by thread: Re: How Inactive may be much greather than cached?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]