On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
No I don't. I'm sure almost all abuse users think our usage is correct. Then,
I can imagine all crazy applications start to use this flag eventually.
--
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>