On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 6:10 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 02:37:15PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote: > > Since memcg_shrinker_map_size just can be changd under holding shrinker_rwsem > > exclusively, the read side can be protected by holding read lock, so it sounds > > superfluous to have a dedicated mutex. This should not exacerbate the contention > > to shrinker_rwsem since just one read side critical section is added. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks Yang, this is a step in the right direction. It would still be > nice to also drop memcg_shrinker_map_size and (trivially) derive that > value from shrinker_nr_max where necessary. It is duplicate state. Thanks! I will take a further look at it.
