Hi, sorry for the delay. > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:53:54 -0700, Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:03:22 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Now, i915_gem_inactive_shrink() should return -1 instead of 0 if it >>> can't take a lock. Otherwise, vmscan is getting a lot of confusing >>> because vmscan can't distinguish "can't take a lock temporary" and >>> "we've shrank all of i915 objects". >> >> This doesn't look like the cleanest change possible. I think it would be >> better if the shrink function could uniformly return an error >> indication so that we wouldn't need the weird looking conditional return. shrink_icache_memory() is good sample code. It doesn't take a lock if sc->nr_to_scan==0. i915_gem_inactive_shrink() should do it too, ideally. My patch only take a first-aid. Plus, if I understand correctly, i915_gem_inactive_shrink() have more fundamental issue. actually, shrinker code shouldn't use mutex. Instead, use spinlock. IOW, Don't call kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) while taking dev->struct_mutex. Otherwise, vmscan in its call path completely fail to shrink i915 cache and it makes big memory reclaim confusing if i915 have a lot of shrinkable pages. > Unless I am mistaken, and there are more patches in flight, the return > code from i915_gem_inactive_shrink() is promoted to unsigned long and then > used in the calculation of how may objects to evict... shrinker->shrink has int type value. you can't change i915_gem_inactive_shrink() unless generic shrinker code. Do you really want to change it? _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
