On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:00 AM, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In case of shrink_slab_memcg() we do not zero nid, when shrinker > is not numa-aware. This is not a real problem, since currently > all memcg-aware shrinkers are numa-aware too (we have two: Actually, this is not true. huge_zero_page_shrinker is NOT numa-aware. deferred_split_shrinker is numa-aware. Thanks, Yang > super_block shrinker and workingset shrinker), but something may > change in the future. > > (Andrew, this may be merged to mm-iterate-only-over-charged-shrinkers-during-memcg-shrink_slab) > > Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index ea0a46166e8e..0d980e801b8a 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -455,6 +455,9 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrinkctl, > : SHRINK_BATCH; > long scanned = 0, next_deferred; > > + if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE)) > + nid = 0; > + > freeable = shrinker->count_objects(shrinker, shrinkctl); > if (freeable == 0 || freeable == SHRINK_EMPTY) > return freeable; > @@ -680,9 +683,6 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid, > .memcg = memcg, > }; > > - if (!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE)) > - sc.nid = 0; > - > ret = do_shrink_slab(&sc, shrinker, priority); > if (ret == SHRINK_EMPTY) > ret = 0; >
