On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:48 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi
>
>>
>> old shrink_slab
>>
>> shrinker->nr += delta; /* Add delta to previous shrinker's remained count */
>> total_scan = shrinker->nr;
>>
>> while(total_scan >= SHRINK_BATCH) {
>> nr_before = shrink(xxx);
>> total_scan =- this_scan;
>> }
>>
>> shrinker->nr += total_scan;
>>
>> The total_scan can always be the number < SHRINK_BATCH.
>> So, when next shrinker calcuates loop count, the number can affect.
>
> Correct.
>
>
>>
>> new shrink_slab
>>
>> shrinker->nr += delta; /* nr is always zero by your patch */
>
> no.
> my patch don't change delta calculation at all.
>
>
>> total_scan = shrinker->nr;
>>
>> while(total_scan >= SHRINK_BATCH) {
>> nr_before = shrink(xxx);
>> if (nr_before == 0) {
>> total_scan = 0;
>> break;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> shrinker->nr += 0;
>>
>> But after your patch, total_scan is always zero. It never affect
>> next shrinker's loop count.
>
> No. after my patch this loop has two exiting way
> 1) total_scan are less than SHRINK_BATCH.
> -> no behavior change. we still pass shrinker->nr += total_scan code.
> 2) (*shrinker->shrink)(0, gfp_mask) return 0
> don't increase shrinker->nr. because two reason,
> a) if total_scan are 10000, we shouldn't carry over such big number.
> b) now, we have zero slab objects, then we have been freed form the guilty of keeping
> balance page and slab reclaim. shrinker->nr += 0; have zero side effect.
Totally, I agree with you.
Thanks for good explanation, Kosaki.
Reviewed-by: Minchan kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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