[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110822163821.e746ab25.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:38:21 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vmscan: fix initial shrinker size handling
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:22:57 +1000
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> 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.
Well, how serious is the bug? If it's a non-issue then we can leave
the fix until 3.1. If it's a non-non-issue then we'd need a minimal
patch to fix up 3.1 and 3.0.x.
--
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