[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E534D13.5020102@openvz.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:47:47 +0400
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vmscan: fix initial shrinker size handling
Andrew Morton wrote:
<snip>
>> long new_nr;
>> long batch_size = shrinker->batch ? shrinker->batch
>> : SHRINK_BATCH;
>>
>> + max_pass = do_shrinker_shrink(shrinker, shrink, 0);
>> + if (max_pass<= 0)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> /*
>> * copy the current shrinker scan count into a local variable
>> * and zero it so that other concurrent shrinker invocations
>> @@ -266,7 +270,6 @@ unsigned long shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrink,
>> } while (cmpxchg(&shrinker->nr, nr, 0) != nr);
>>
>> total_scan = nr;
>> - max_pass = do_shrinker_shrink(shrinker, shrink, 0);
>> delta = (4 * nr_pages_scanned) / shrinker->seeks;
>> delta *= max_pass;
>> do_div(delta, lru_pages + 1);
>
> Why was the shrinker call moved to before the alteration of shrinker->nr?
I think, if we skip shrinker we shouldn't reset accumulated pressure,
because next reclaimer (for example with less strict gfp) can use it.
--
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