> > > {
> > > struct xfs_mount *mp;
> > > struct xfs_perag *pag;
> > > xfs_agnumber_t ag;
> > > int reclaimable;
> > > + int nr_to_scan = sc->nr_slab_to_reclaim;
> > > + gfp_t gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask;
> >
> > And, this very near meaning field .nr_scanned and .nr_slab_to_reclaim
> > poped up new question.
> > Why don't we pass more clever slab shrinker target? Why do we need pass
> > similar two argument?
> >
>
> I renamed the nr_slab_to_reclaim and nr_scanned in shrink struct.
Oh no. that's not naming issue. example, Nick's previous similar patch pass
zone-total-pages and how-much-scanned-pages. (ie shrink_slab don't calculate
current magical target scanning objects anymore)
ie, "4 * max_pass * (scanned / nr- lru_pages-in-zones)"
Instead, individual shrink_slab callback calculate this one.
see git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git
I'm curious why you change the design from another guy's previous very similar effort and
We have to be convinced which is better.
--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>