[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150727221040.GA4038@jtriplet-mobl1>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:10:40 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.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, Jul 27, 2015 at 01:31:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
*Ah*, I see. I misunderstood their purpose, and I didn't realize that
was one of the cases they covered. While that might be possible to
reduce, it doesn't sound like it can go away entirely. :)
- Josh Triplett
--
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