linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20150727133133.a2c22062fba70b971f449d0a@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:31:33 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	josh@...htriplett.org
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:27:58 -0700 josh@...htriplett.org wrote:

> I agree with that.  I'm wondering if, rather than making the
> SRCU-ification optional, shrinkers themselves could just be optional.
> Unless I'm badly misunderstanding what shrinkers do, they seem like a
> perfect example of something that could be omitted with little to no
> impact.  (Stub them out, make them never called, and if you run out of
> memory just be unhappy.  Ditto for the oom-killer, which really ought to
> be optional.)

The shrinkers do important stuff ;) "find /" will consume large amounts
of memory for inode and dentry caches.  The shrinkers are how we free
that up again.

--
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/