lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:59:55 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> To: linux-mm@...ck.org, yinghan@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org CC: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] change shrinker API by passing shrink_control struct > Hmm, got Nick's email wrong. > > --Ying Ping. Can you please explain current status? When I can see your answer? > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro >> <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>> > > .{ >>>> > > . . . struct xfs_mount *mp; >>>> > > . . . struct xfs_perag *pag; >>>> > > . . . xfs_agnumber_t .ag; >>>> > > . . . int . . . . . . reclaimable; >>>> > > + . . int nr_to_scan = sc->nr_slab_to_reclaim; >>>> > > + . . gfp_t gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask; >>>> > >>>> > And, this very near meaning field .nr_scanned and .nr_slab_to_reclaim >>>> > poped up new question. >>>> > Why don't we pass more clever slab shrinker target? Why do we need pass >>>> > similar two argument? >>>> > >>>> >>>> I renamed the nr_slab_to_reclaim and nr_scanned in shrink struct. >>> >>> Oh no. that's not naming issue. example, Nick's previous similar patch pass >>> zone-total-pages and how-much-scanned-pages. (ie shrink_slab don't calculate >>> current magical target scanning objects anymore) >>> . . . .ie, ."4 * .max_pass .* (scanned / nr- lru_pages-in-zones)" >>> >>> Instead, individual shrink_slab callback calculate this one. >>> see git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git >>> >>> I'm curious why you change the design from another guy's previous very similar effort and >>> We have to be convinced which is better. >> >> Thank you for the pointer. My patch is intended to consolidate all >> existing parameters passed from reclaim code >> to the shrinker. >> >> Talked w/ Nick and Andrew from last LSF, .we agree that this patch >> will be useful for other extensions later which allows us easily >> adding extensions to the shrinkers without shrinker files. Nick and I >> talked about the effort later to pass the nodemask down to the >> shrinker. He is cc-ed in the thread. Another thing I would like to >> repost is to add the reclaim priority down to the shrinker, which we >> won't throw tons of page caches pages by reclaiming one inode slab >> object. >> >> --Ying -- 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