On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:17:27PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Use atomic-long operations instead of looping around cmpxchg().
>
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/shrinker.h | 2 +-
> mm/vmscan.c | 17 +++++++----------
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/shrinker.h b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> index 790651b..ac6b8ee 100644
> --- a/include/linux/shrinker.h
> +++ b/include/linux/shrinker.h
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ struct shrinker {
>
> /* These are for internal use */
> struct list_head list;
> - long nr; /* objs pending delete */
> + atomic_long_t nr_in_batch; /* objs pending delete */
It's not really the number in a batch - we use the "batch" term to
refer to the value we set sc->nr_to_scan for each shrinker scan call.
This is more the overflow of unscanned objects - objects pending
delete, as the comment says. So renaming it "nr_pending" might be
better.
As it is, this is a good change - I'll fold it into the series I
already have.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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>