On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 03:05:27AM +0000, 李培锋(wink) wrote:
> On 16.06.23 11:21, lipeifeng@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> From: lipeifeng <lipeifeng@xxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Some of shrinkers during shrink_slab would enter synchronous-wait due
> >> to lock or other reasons, which would causes kswapd or direct_reclaim
> >> to be blocked.
> >>
> >> This patch export shrink_slab so that it can be called in drivers
> >> which can shrink memory independently.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: lipeifeng <lipeifeng@xxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> mm/vmscan.c | 3 ++-
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index
> >> 6d0cd2840cf0..2e54fa52e7ec 100644
> >> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> >> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> @@ -1043,7 +1043,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> >> *
> >> * Returns the number of reclaimed slab objects.
> >> */
> >> -static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> >> +unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> >> struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> >> int priority)
> >> {
> >> @@ -1087,6 +1087,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_slab(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nid,
> >> cond_resched();
> >> return freed;
> >> }
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(shrink_slab);
> >>
> >> static unsigned long drop_slab_node(int nid)
> >> {
> >
> >It feels like something we don't want arbitrary drivers to call.
> >
> >Unrelated to that, this better be sent along with actual driver usage.
>
> Hi Sir：
>
> Virtually, we have implemented async shrink_slabd isolated from kswapd and direct_reclaim.
> The goal above it is to avoid the sync-wait in kswapd or direct_reclaim due to some shrinkers.
>
> But the async shrink_slabd was only applied to mobile products so that I didn't make sure any
> risk in other products. For the above reasons, I wanna merge the patch to export shrink_slab
> and the patch of drivers would be considered to be pushed if I check all the risks.
>
> Some informal code files of driver are attached for your reference.
You have to submit this as a real series, we can not accept exports for
no in-kernel users (nor would you want us to, as that ends up being an
unmaintainable mess.)
So please resubmit this as a proper patch series, with the user of this
function, and then it can be properly evaluated. As-is, this can not be
accepted at all.
thanks,
greg k-h
