> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > I think this series has the same target with Nick's per-zone shrinker. > > So, Do you dislike Nick's approach? can you please elaborate your intention? > > Sorry. I have not seen Nicks approach. > > The per zone approach seems to be at variance with how objects are tracked > at the slab layer. There is no per zone accounting there. So attempts to > do expiration of caches etc at that layer would not work right. Please define your 'right' behavior ;-) If we need to discuss 'right' thing, we also need to define how behavior is right, I think. slab API itself don't have zone taste. but it implictly depend on a zone because buddy and reclaim are constructed on zones and slab is constructed on buddy. IOW, every slab object have a home zone. So, which workload or usecause make a your head pain? -- 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>