On Fri, 2018-08-31 at 13:34 -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index fa2c150ab7b9..c910cf6bf606 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -476,6 +476,10 @@ static unsigned long do_shrink_slab(struct
> shrink_control *shrinkctl,
> delta = freeable >> priority;
> delta *= 4;
> do_div(delta, shrinker->seeks);
> +
> + if (delta == 0 && freeable > 0)
> + delta = min(freeable, batch_size);
> +
> total_scan += delta;
> if (total_scan < 0) {
> pr_err("shrink_slab: %pF negative objects to delete
> nr=%ld\n",
I agree that we need to shrink slabs with fewer than
4096 objects, but do we want to put more pressure on
a slab the moment it drops below 4096 than we applied
when it had just over 4096 objects on it?
With this patch, a slab with 5000 objects on it will
get 1 item scanned, while a slab with 4000 objects on
it will see shrinker->batch or SHRINK_BATCH objects
scanned every time.
I don't know if this would cause any issues, just
something to ponder.
If nobody things this is a problem, you can give the
patch my:
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
All Rights Reversed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
