On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 09:50:32AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2025, cel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
...
> I think that instead of passing "list_lru_count()" we should pass some
> constant like 1024.
>
> cnt = list_lru_count()
> while (cnt > 0) {
> num = min(cnt, 1024);
> list_lru_walk(...., num);
> cond_sched()
> cnt -= num;
> }
>
> Then run it from system_wq.
>
> list_lru_shrink is most often called as list_lru_shrink_walk() from a
> shrinker, and the pattern there is essentially that above. A count is
> taken, possibly scaled down, then the shrinker is called in batches.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with taking some msecs or even tens of msecs
running on system_unbound_wq, so the current state may be fine too.
Thanks.
--
tejun
