[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110822232257.GT3162@dastard>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:22:57 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vmscan: fix initial shrinker size handling
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:17:21PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Shrinker function can returns -1, it means it cannot do anything without a risk of deadlock.
> For example prune_super() do this if it cannot grab superblock refrence, even if nr_to_scan=0.
> Currenly we interpret this like ULONG_MAX size shrinker, evaluate total_scan according this,
> and next time this shrinker can get really big pressure. Let's skip such shrinkers instead.
>
> Also make total_scan signed, otherwise check (total_scan < 0) below never works.
I've got a patch set I am going to post out today that makes this
irrelevant.
The patch set splits the shrinker api into 2 callbacks - a "count
objects" callback and an "scan objects" callback, getting rid of
this messy "pass nr-to_scan == 0 to count objects" wart altogether.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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