On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:55 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2018 14:56:55 +0300 Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The patch introduces shrinker::id number, which is used to enumerate > > memcg-aware shrinkers. The number start from 0, and the code tries > > to maintain it as small as possible. > > > > This will be used as to represent a memcg-aware shrinkers in memcg > > shrinkers map. > > > > ... > > > > --- a/fs/super.c > > +++ b/fs/super.c > > @@ -248,6 +248,9 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags, > > s->s_time_gran = 1000000000; > > s->cleancache_poolid = CLEANCACHE_NO_POOL; > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG) && !defined(CONFIG_SLOB) > It would be more conventional to do this logic in Kconfig - define a > new MEMCG_SHRINKER which equals MEMCG && !SLOB. > This ifdef occurs a distressing number of times in the patchset :( I > wonder if there's something we can do about that. > Also, why doesn't it work with slob? Please describe the issue in the > changelogs somewhere. > It's a pretty big patchset. I *could* merge it up in the hope that > someone is planning do do a review soon. But is there such a person? Hi Andrew, couple of these patches are being reviewed by Vladimir and I plan to review too by next week. I think we can merge them into mm tree for more testing and I will also this patch series internally (though I have to backport them to our kernel for more extensive testing). thanks, Shakeel
