> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:13 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If number of reclaimable slabs are zero, shrink_icache_memory() and
> > shrink_dcache_memory() return 0. but strangely shrink_slab() ignore
> > it and continue meaningless loop iteration.
> >
> > This patch fixes it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 0f9f624..8f61adb 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -243,6 +243,11 @@ unsigned long shrink_slab(unsigned long scanned, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > int nr_before;
> >
> > nr_before = (*shrinker->shrink)(0, gfp_mask);
> > + /* no slab objects, no more reclaim. */
> > + if (nr_before == 0) {
> > + total_scan = 0;
>
> Why do you reset totoal_scan to 0?
If shab objects are zero, we don't need more reclaim.
> I don't know exact meaning of shrinker->nr.
similar meaning of reclaim_stat->nr_saved_scan.
If total_scan can't divide SHRINK_BATCH(128), saving remainder and using at next shrink_slab().
> AFAIU, it can affect next shrinker's total_scan.
> Isn't it harmful?
No. This loop is
total_scan = shrinker->nr; /* Reset and init total_scan */
shrinker->nr = 0;
while (total_scan >= SHRINK_BATCH) {
nr_before = (*shrinker->shrink)(0, gfp_mask);
/* no slab objects, no more reclaim. */
if (nr_before == 0) {
total_scan = 0;
break;
}
shrink_ret = (*shrinker->shrink)(this_scan, gfp_mask);
if (shrink_ret == -1)
break;
if (shrink_ret < nr_before)
ret += nr_before - shrink_ret;
total_scan -= this_scan;
}
shrinker->nr += total_scan; /* save remainder #of-scan */
--
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