[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod6cUJktTAGrc-q7XPRTykdWR6MfgyPXE1B=AZq9U7P31g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:54:49 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: shy828301@...il.com
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, jbacik@...com,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Move check for SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE to do_shrink_slab()
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 9:47 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> > In case of shrink_slab_memcg() we do not zero nid, when shrinker
> > is not numa-aware. This is not a real problem, since currently
> > all memcg-aware shrinkers are numa-aware too (we have two:
>
> Actually, this is not true. huge_zero_page_shrinker is NOT numa-aware.
> deferred_split_shrinker is numa-aware.
>
But both huge_zero_page_shrinker and huge_zero_page_shrinker are not
memcg-aware shrinkers. I think Kirill is saying all memcg-aware
shrinkers are also numa-aware shrinkers.
Shakeel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists