> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Add a field node to struct shrinker that can be used to indicate on which > > node the reclaim should occur. The node field also can be set to NUMA_NO_NODE > > in which case a reclaim pass over all nodes is desired. > > > > Index: linux-2.6/mm/vmscan.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/vmscan.c 2010-10-21 12:50:21.000000000 -0500 > > +++ linux-2.6/mm/vmscan.c 2010-10-21 12:50:31.000000000 -0500 > > @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_shrinker); > > * Returns the number of slab objects which we shrunk. > > */ > > unsigned long shrink_slab(unsigned long scanned, gfp_t gfp_mask, > > - unsigned long lru_pages) > > + unsigned long lru_pages, int node) > > { > > struct shrinker *shrinker; > > unsigned long ret = 0; > > @@ -218,6 +218,7 @@ unsigned long shrink_slab(unsigned long > > unsigned long total_scan; > > unsigned long max_pass; > > > > + shrinker->node = node; > > max_pass = (*shrinker->shrink)(shrinker, 0, gfp_mask); > > delta = (4 * scanned) / shrinker->seeks; > > delta *= max_pass; > > Apologies for coming late to the party, but I have to ask - is there > anything protecting shrinker->node from concurrent modification if > several threads are trying to reclaim memory at once ? shrinker_rwsem? :) > > (I note that there was already something similar done to shrinker->nr > field, so I am probably missing some subtlety in the locking ?) -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href