From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com,
reiserfs-dev@namesys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup and kernelify shrinker registration (rc5-mm2)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 23:09:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070402230954.27840721.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1175579225.12230.504.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:47:05 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 21:57 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:45:02 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > If it wants to be well-behaved, and to behave as the VM expects, yes.
> >
> > There's an expectation that the callback will be performing some scan-based
> > aging operation and of course to do LRU (or whatever) aging, the callback
> > will need to remember where it was up to last time it was called.
> >
> > But it's just a guideline - callbacks could do something different but
> > in-the-spirit, I guess.
>
> Hmm, actually the callers I looked at (nfs, dcache, mbcache) seem to use
> an LRU list and just walk the first "nr_to_scan" entries, and nr_to_scan
> is always 128.
That's just because of the batching logic up in shrink_slab(). And iirc we
only break the scanning into lumps of 128 items so we can add a
cond_resched() into it.
> Someone who keeps a cursor will be disadvantaged: the other shrinkers
> could well get less effective on repeated calls, but we won't. Someone
> who picks entries at random might have the same issue.
To examine the balancing one would need to examine the value of total_scan
in shrink_slab(), rather than looking at the value which shrink_slab()
passes into the callback.
> I think it is clearest to describe how we expect everyone to work, and
> let whoever is getting creative worry about it themselves.
>
> How's this:
> ==
> Cleanup and kernelify shrinker registration.
hm, well, six-of-one, VI of the other. We save maybe four kmallocs across
the entire uptime at the cost of exposing stuff kernel-side which doesn't
need to be exposed.
But I think we need to weed that crappiness out of XFS first.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com,
reiserfs-dev@namesys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup and kernelify shrinker registration (rc5-mm2)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 23:09:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070402230954.27840721.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1175579225.12230.504.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:47:05 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 21:57 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:45:02 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > If it wants to be well-behaved, and to behave as the VM expects, yes.
> >
> > There's an expectation that the callback will be performing some scan-based
> > aging operation and of course to do LRU (or whatever) aging, the callback
> > will need to remember where it was up to last time it was called.
> >
> > But it's just a guideline - callbacks could do something different but
> > in-the-spirit, I guess.
>
> Hmm, actually the callers I looked at (nfs, dcache, mbcache) seem to use
> an LRU list and just walk the first "nr_to_scan" entries, and nr_to_scan
> is always 128.
That's just because of the batching logic up in shrink_slab(). And iirc we
only break the scanning into lumps of 128 items so we can add a
cond_resched() into it.
> Someone who keeps a cursor will be disadvantaged: the other shrinkers
> could well get less effective on repeated calls, but we won't. Someone
> who picks entries at random might have the same issue.
To examine the balancing one would need to examine the value of total_scan
in shrink_slab(), rather than looking at the value which shrink_slab()
passes into the callback.
> I think it is clearest to describe how we expect everyone to work, and
> let whoever is getting creative worry about it themselves.
>
> How's this:
> ==
> Cleanup and kernelify shrinker registration.
hm, well, six-of-one, VI of the other. We save maybe four kmallocs across
the entire uptime at the cost of exposing stuff kernel-side which doesn't
need to be exposed.
But I think we need to weed that crappiness out of XFS first.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-03 6:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-03 3:44 [PATCH] Cleanup and kernelify shrinker registration (rc5-mm2) Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 3:44 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 3:47 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 3:47 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 3:58 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-03 3:58 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-03 4:45 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 4:45 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 4:57 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-03 4:57 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-03 5:44 ` [xfs-masters] " David Chinner
2007-04-03 5:44 ` David Chinner
2007-04-03 6:01 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-03 6:01 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-03 6:19 ` David Chinner
2007-04-03 6:19 ` David Chinner
2007-04-04 0:30 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-04 0:30 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 5:47 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 5:47 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 6:09 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-04-03 6:09 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-03 7:18 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 7:18 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-03 12:37 ` [xfs-masters] " David Chinner
2007-04-03 12:37 ` David Chinner
2007-04-03 17:36 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-03 17:36 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-04 0:03 ` David Chinner
2007-04-04 0:03 ` David Chinner
2007-04-03 9:57 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-03 9:57 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070402230954.27840721.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=reiserfs-dev@namesys.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.