On 17:03 Tue 14 May , Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 05/13/2013 06:16 PM, Oskar Andero wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In a previous discussion on lkml it was noted that the shrinkers use the
> > magic value "-1" to signal that something went wrong.
> >
> > This patch-set implements the suggestion of instead using errno.h values
> > to return something more meaningful.
> >
> > The first patch simply changes the check from -1 to any negative value and
> > updates the comment accordingly.
> >
> > The second patch updates the shrinkers to return an errno.h value instead
> > of -1. Since this one spans over many different areas I need input on what is
> > a meaningful return value. Right now I used -EBUSY on everything for consitency.
> >
> > What do you say? Is this a good idea or does it make no sense at all?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> Right now me and Dave are completely reworking the way shrinkers
> operate. I suggest, first of all, that you take a look at that cautiously.
Sounds good. Where can one find the code for that?
> On the specifics of what you are doing here, what would be the benefit
> of returning something other than -1 ? Is there anything we would do
> differently for a return value lesser than 1?
Firstly, what bugs me is the magic and unintuitiveness of using -1 rather than a
more descriptive error code. IMO, even a #define SHRINK_ERROR -1 in some header
file would be better.
Expanding the test to <0 will open up for more granular error checks,
like -EAGAIN, -EBUSY and so on. Currently, they would all be treated the same,
but maybe in the future we would like to handle them differently?
Finally, looking at the code:
if (shrink_ret == -1)
break;
if (shrink_ret < nr_before)
ret += nr_before - shrink_ret;
This piece of code will only function if shrink_ret is either greater than zero
or -1. If shrink_ret is -2 this will lead to undefined behaviour.
> So far, shrink_slab behaves the same, you are just expanding the test.
> If you really want to push this through, I would suggest coming up with
> a more concrete reason for why this is wanted.
I don't know how well this patch is aligned with your current rework, but
based on my comments above, I don't see a reason for not taking it.
-Oskar
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>