On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/21/2012 01:11 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:38:41 -0700 >> Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > The mmu_shrink() is heavy by itself by iterating all kvms and holding >> > the kvm_lock. spotted the code w/ Rik during LSF, and it turns out we >> > don't need to call the shrinker if nothing to shrink. >> > >> >> We should probably tell the kvm maintainers about this ;) >> > > > Andrew, I see you added this to -mm. First, it should go through the > kvm tree. Second, unless we misunderstand something, the patch does > nothing, so I don't think it should be added at all. Avi, does this patch help the case as you mentioned above, where kvm module is loaded but no virtual machines are present ? Why we have to walk the empty while holding the spinlock? --Ying > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function > -- 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