From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261203AbVCXXjy (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:39:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261250AbVCXXjy (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:39:54 -0500 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:23965 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261203AbVCXXiO (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:38:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:38:13 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Bill Nottingham Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bad caching behavior in 2.6.12rc1 Message-Id: <20050324153813.5ee0ab1f.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050324232731.GA14812@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20050324232731.GA14812@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bill Nottingham wrote: > > When I upgraded from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12rc1, the VM started > behaving really badly with respect to caching. > > Test box is a 1.5GB laptop. > > In typical use, I would open a mailbox A, and then switch > to mailbox B. Immediately switching back to mailbox A, I > would find out it was no longer cached. (Using maildirs, > FWIW.) > > Looking at /proc/meminfo, I would see: > > LowFree: 8-12MB > HighFree: 300-400MB > Cached: 100-200MB > > i.e., it was evicting cache when there was plenty of highmem > available for use. Where's the rest of the memory gone? A full /proc/meminfo would be useful.