Quoting Andrew Morton (2017-08-22 23:45:50) > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:53:25 +0100 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > shrink_slab() allows us to report back the number of objects we > > successfully scanned (out of the target shrinkctl->nr_to_scan). As > > report the number of pages owned by each GEM object as a separate item > > to the shrinker, we cannot precisely control the number of shrinker > > objects we scan on each pass; and indeed may free more than requested. > > If we fail to tell the shrinker about the number of objects we process, > > it will continue to hold a grudge against us as any objects left > > unscanned are added to the next reclaim -- and so we will keep on > > "unfairly" shrinking our own slab in comparison to other slabs. > > It's unclear which tree this is against but I think I got it all fixed > up. Please check the changes to i915_gem_shrink(). My apologies, I wrote it against drm-tip for running against our CI. The changes look fine, thank you. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
