Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:47:13 +0300
Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Inode cache pruning indirectly reclaims page-cache by invalidating mapping pages.
Let's account them into reclaim-state to notice this progress in memory reclaimer.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/inode.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index ee4e66b..1f6c48d 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -692,6 +692,8 @@ void prune_icache_sb(struct super_block *sb, int nr_to_scan)
else
__count_vm_events(PGINODESTEAL, reap);
spin_unlock(&sb->s_inode_lru_lock);
+ if (current->reclaim_state)
+ current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab += reap;
dispose_list(&freeable);
}
hm, yes, I suppose we should.
It seems to be cheating to use the "reclaimed_slab" field for this.
Perhaps it would be cleaner to add an additional field to reclaim_state
for non-slab pages which were also reclaimed. That's a cosmetic thing
and I guess we don't need to go that far, not sure...
Do we really need separate on-stack reclaim_state structure with single field?
Maybe replace it with single long (or even unsigned int) .reclaimed_pages field on task_struct
and account reclaimed pages unconditionally.
--
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>