On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 01:31:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:27:58 -0700 josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > I agree with that. I'm wondering if, rather than making the > > SRCU-ification optional, shrinkers themselves could just be optional. > > Unless I'm badly misunderstanding what shrinkers do, they seem like a > > perfect example of something that could be omitted with little to no > > impact. (Stub them out, make them never called, and if you run out of > > memory just be unhappy. Ditto for the oom-killer, which really ought to > > be optional.) > > The shrinkers do important stuff ;) "find /" will consume large amounts > of memory for inode and dentry caches. The shrinkers are how we free > that up again. *Ah*, I see. I misunderstood their purpose, and I didn't realize that was one of the cases they covered. While that might be possible to reduce, it doesn't sound like it can go away entirely. :) - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
