xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH] Cleanup and kernelify shrinker registration (r

To: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH] Cleanup and kernelify shrinker registration (rc5-mm2)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:45:02 +1000
Cc: lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070402205825.12190e52.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <1175571885.12230.473.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070402205825.12190e52.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 20:58 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:44:45 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I can never remember what the function to register to receive VM pressure
> > is called.  I have to trace down from __alloc_pages() to find it.
> > 
> > It's called "set_shrinker()", and it needs Your Help.
> > 
> > New version:
> > 1) Don't hide struct shrinker.  It contains no magic.
> > 2) Don't allocate "struct shrinker".  It's not helpful.
> > 3) Call them "register_shrinker" and "unregister_shrinker".
> > 4) Call the function "shrink" not "shrinker".
> > 5) Rename "nr_to_scan" argument to "nr_to_free".
> 
> No, it is actually the number to scan.  This is >= the number of freed
> objects.
> 
> This is because, for better of for worse, the VM tries to balance the
> scanning rate of the various caches, not the reclaiming rate.

Err, ok, I completely missed that distinction.

Does that mean the to function correctly every user needs some internal
cursor so it doesn't end up scanning the first N entries over and over?

Rusty.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>