[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1309424153_44559@CP5-2952>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:55:55 +0100
From: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To: Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, airlied@...ux.ie,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i915: slab shrinker have to return -1 if it cant shrink any objects
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:53:54 -0700, Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:03:22 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, i915_gem_inactive_shrink() should return -1 instead of 0 if it
> > can't take a lock. Otherwise, vmscan is getting a lot of confusing
> > because vmscan can't distinguish "can't take a lock temporary" and
> > "we've shrank all of i915 objects".
>
> This doesn't look like the cleanest change possible. I think it would be
> better if the shrink function could uniformly return an error
> indication so that we wouldn't need the weird looking conditional return.
Unless I am mistaken, and there are more patches in flight, the return
code from i915_gem_inactive_shrink() is promoted to unsigned long and then
used in the calculation of how may objects to evict...
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
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