On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:23:22 -0800 > Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Yes, and it would be much easier later to add a small feature (like this >> one) w/o >> touching so many files of the shrinkers. I am thinking if we can extend the >> scan_control >> from page reclaim and pass it down to the shrinker ? > > Yes, that might work. All callers of shrink_slab() already have a > scan_control on the stack, so passing all that extra info to the > shrinkers (along with some extra fields if needed) is pretty cheap, and > I don't see a great downside to exposing unneeded fields to the > shrinkers, given they're already on the stack somewhere. The only downside I can see is that it makes struct scan_control public - it'll need to be declared in a public header file so that all shrinkers can access it. Maybe one way to mitigate this would be if we can make the shrinker api take a *const* struct scan_control pointer as an argument, so that it'll be clear that we expect the shrinkers to only read the information in that struct. -- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies. -- 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