> On 27 Feb 2018, at 13:49, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Releasing cap is affected by many factors (e.g., avail_count/reserve_count/min_count) > and min_count could be specified high volume in client mount option. Hence it's better > to mark cap cache as unreclaimable in case of non-trivial discrepancies between memory > shown as reclaimable and what is actually reclaimed. > > Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/ceph/super.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c > index a62d2a9..3482834 100644 > --- a/fs/ceph/super.c > +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c > @@ -696,8 +696,7 @@ static int __init init_caches(void) > if (!ceph_inode_cachep) > return -ENOMEM; > > - ceph_cap_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(ceph_cap, > - SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT|SLAB_MEM_SPREAD); > + ceph_cap_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(ceph_cap, SLAB_MEM_SPREAD); > if (!ceph_cap_cachep) > goto bad_cap; > ceph_cap_flush_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(ceph_cap_flush, > -- > 1.8.3.1 > Applied. Thanks Yan, Zheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
