Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] change shrinker API by passing shrink_control struct

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hmm, got Nick's email wrong.
>
> --Ying

Ping.
Can you please explain current status? When I can see your answer?
 
The patch has been merged into mmotm-04-29-16-25. Sorry if there is a question that I missed ?

--Ying


>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
>> <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> > >  {
>>>> > >       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.
>>
>> Thank you for the pointer. My patch is intended to consolidate all
>> existing parameters passed from reclaim code
>> to the shrinker.
>>
>> Talked w/ Nick and Andrew from last LSF,  we agree that this patch
>> will be useful for other extensions later which allows us easily
>> adding extensions to the shrinkers without shrinker files. Nick and I
>> talked about the effort later to pass the nodemask down to the
>> shrinker. He is cc-ed in the thread. Another thing I would like to
>> repost is to add the reclaim priority down to the shrinker, which we
>> won't throw tons of page caches pages by reclaiming one inode slab
>> object.
>>
>> --Ying




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]