[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130730074531.GA10584@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:45:31 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dave.hansen@...el.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, bp@...e.de,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] drop_caches: add some documentation and info
message
On Mon 29-07-13 13:57:43, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:44:29 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
[...]
> > --- a/fs/drop_caches.c
> > +++ b/fs/drop_caches.c
> > @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ int drop_caches_sysctl_handler(ctl_table *table, int write,
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > if (write) {
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "%s (%d): dropped kernel caches: %d\n",
> > + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), sysctl_drop_caches);
> > if (sysctl_drop_caches & 1)
> > iterate_supers(drop_pagecache_sb, NULL);
> > if (sysctl_drop_caches & 2)
>
> How about we do
>
> if (!(sysctl_drop_caches & 4))
> printk(....)
>
> so people can turn it off if it's causing problems?
I am OK with that but can we use a top bit instead. Maybe we never have
other entities to drop in the future but it would be better to have a room for them
just in case. So what about using 1<<31 instead?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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