On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 08:15:14PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Any chance we can still get this into 2.6.34? It's really needed to fix > a regression in XFS that would be hard to impossible to work around > inside the fs. While it touches quite a few places the changes are > trivial and well understood. Why do you even need this context argument? Reclaim is not doing anything smart about this, it would just call each call shrinker in turn. Do you not have an easily traversable list of mountpoints? Can you just make a list of them? It would be cheaper than putting a whole shrinker structure into them anyway. The main reason I would be against proliferation of dynamic shrinker registration would be that it could change reclaim behaviour depending on how they get ordered (in the cache the caches are semi-dependent, like inode cache and dentry cache). Unless there is a reason I missed, I would much prefer not to do this like this. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>