On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:54:16 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> How about this: we allow disabling the log message, but print the line
> of the disabling call so it's clear who dunnit. To make sure valuable
> info is not missing in bug reports, add counters for the two events in
> /proc/vmstat.
>
> Does that sound acceptable?
Yes, I really don't know what's the right thing to do here or where the
best tradeoff point is situated. Let's start off this way and see what
happens I guess.
> --- a/fs/drop_caches.c
> +++ b/fs/drop_caches.c
> @@ -59,10 +59,22 @@ int drop_caches_sysctl_handler(ctl_table *table, int write,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> if (write) {
> - if (sysctl_drop_caches & 1)
> + static int stfu;
That identifier wasn't serious, but I kinda like it.
> +
> + if (sysctl_drop_caches & 1) {
> iterate_supers(drop_pagecache_sb, NULL);
> - if (sysctl_drop_caches & 2)
> + count_vm_event(DROP_PAGECACHE);
> + }
> + if (sysctl_drop_caches & 2) {
> drop_slab();
> + count_vm_event(DROP_SLAB);
> + }
> + if (!stfu) {
> + pr_info("%s (%d): drop_caches: %d\n",
> + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current),
> + sysctl_drop_caches);
> + }
> + stfu |= sysctl_drop_caches & 4;
> }
> return 0;
> }
--
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>