On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:22:57 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:17:21PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > > Shrinker function can returns -1, it means it cannot do anything without a risk of deadlock. > > For example prune_super() do this if it cannot grab superblock refrence, even if nr_to_scan=0. > > Currenly we interpret this like ULONG_MAX size shrinker, evaluate total_scan according this, > > and next time this shrinker can get really big pressure. Let's skip such shrinkers instead. > > > > Also make total_scan signed, otherwise check (total_scan < 0) below never works. > > I've got a patch set I am going to post out today that makes this > irrelevant. Well, how serious is the bug? If it's a non-issue then we can leave the fix until 3.1. If it's a non-non-issue then we'd need a minimal patch to fix up 3.1 and 3.0.x. -- 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>