On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 23:11:50 -0400 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> --- a/fs/drop_caches.c
> >> +++ b/fs/drop_caches.c
> >> @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ int drop_caches_sysctl_handler(ctl_table *table, int write,
> >> if (ret)
> >> return ret;
> >> if (write) {
> >> + printk(KERN_INFO "%s (%d): dropped kernel caches: %d\n",
> >> + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), sysctl_drop_caches);
> >> if (sysctl_drop_caches & 1)
> >> iterate_supers(drop_pagecache_sb, NULL);
> >> if (sysctl_drop_caches & 2)
> >
> > How about we do
> >
> > if (!(sysctl_drop_caches & 4))
> > printk(....)
> >
> > so people can turn it off if it's causing problems?
>
> The best interface depends on the purpose. If you want to detect crazy application,
> we can't assume an application co-operate us. So, I doubt this works.
You missed the "!". I'm proposing that setting the new bit 2 will
permit people to prevent the new printk if it is causing them problems.
--
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>