[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <000001392aedc393-52afb686-d95c-4ed7-9164-1388267fab06-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:36:28 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, yinghan@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Greg Thelen wrote:
> > You can already shrink the reclaimable slabs (dentries / inodes) via
> > calls to the subsystem specific shrinkers. Did Ying Han do anything to
> > go beyond that?
>
> cc: Ying
>
> The Google shrinker patches enhance prune_dcache_sb() to limit dentry
> pressure to a specific memcg.
Ok then its restricted to the reclaimable slab caches already. The main
issue to sort out then is who is the "owner" of an inode/dentry (if
something like that exists). If you separate the objects into different
pages then the objects may be cleanly separated at the price of more
memory use.
--
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