On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 01:46:04AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:21:06PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Introduce a mechanism for ->count_objects() to indicate to the > > shrinker infrastructure that the reclaim context will not allow > > scanning work to be done and so the work it decides is necessary > > needs to be deferred. > > > > This simplifies the code by separating out the accounting of > > deferred work from the actual doing of the work, and allows better > > decisions to be made by the shrinekr control logic on what action it > > can take. > > I hate all this boilerplate code in the scanners. Can't we just add > a a required_gfp_mask field to struct shrinker and lift the pattern > to common code? FWIW, I suggested something similar on the RFC as well. Based on where that discussion ended up, however, I'm also kind of wondering why we wouldn't move towards infrastructure that supports the more granular per-item deferred tracking that is the supposed end goal (and at the same time avoid shifting this logic back and forth between the count callback and the scan/reclaim callback)..? Brian
