From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 6 10:37:12 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA13976 for current-outgoing; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 10:37:12 -0800 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA13970 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 10:37:04 -0800 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA18781; Mon, 6 Mar 95 11:30:03 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9503061830.AA18781@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: more ETXTBSY bugs To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Mon, 6 Mar 95 11:30:03 MST Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199503061602.IAA00634@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Mar 6, 95 08:02:54 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >All this may be old behaviour. There is certainly some new behaviour: > >The ETXTBUSY bit didn't go away while I was running `make' in the > >background for 10-20 minutes. Perhaps the vnode and associated buffers > >didn't go away either, and clog up the caches. > > There are a lot more cached objects than before (several thousand on a > machine with a lot of memory). You'd have to access several thousand > previously unaccessed files before you'd flush out the one that is VTEXT. There is an intentionally restrictive buffer cache limit of 10% of available memory in some modern systems because of this problem. Is this a good or a bad idea? A lot of what is "common knowledge about VM" is no longer applicable with a unified cache, so this limit might not be as good an idea as it seems to be. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.