On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:30:32AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 04/10/2013 06:51 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > As you can see, before this patch, do_shrinker_shrink() for > > "huge_zero_page_shrinker" is not called until we call shrink_slab() more > > than 13 times. *Frequency* we call do_shrinker_shrink() actually is > > largely different with before. With this patch, we actually call > > do_shrinker_shrink() for "huge_zero_page_shrinker" 12 times more > > than before. Can we be convinced that there will be no problem? > > > > This is why I worry about this change. > > Am I worried too much? :) > > Yes, you are. The amount of times shrink_slab is called is completely > unpredictable. Changing the size of cached data structures is a lot more > likely to change this than this shrinker change, for instance. > > Not to mention, the amount of times shrink_slab() is called is not > changed directly here. But rather, the amount of times an individual > shrinker actually does work. Yes, I worried about the amount of times an individual shrinker triggered. As you mentioned, it can be unpredictable. My concern without data may be useless and invalid to you. So, from now on, I will stop to worry about this. Thanks. > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
