[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150713090358.GA28901@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 02:03:58 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm/shrinker: make unregister_shrinker() less fragile
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:52:53PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Why? In some sense, shrinker callbacks are just a way to be nice.
> No one writes a driver just to be able to handle shrinker calls. An
> ability to react to those calls is just additional option; it does
> not directly affect or limit driver's functionality (at least, it
> really should not).
No, they are not just nice. They are a fundamental part of memory
management and required to reclaim (often large) amounts of memory.
Nevermind that we don't ignore any other registration time error in
the kernel.
> > The right way forward is to handle register failure properly.
>
> In other words, to
> (a) keep a flag to signify that register was not successful
> or
> (b) look at ->shrinker.list.next or ->nr_deferred
> or
> (c) treat register failures as critical errors. (I sort of
> disagree with you here).
The only important part is here is (c).
--
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