* On shrinkable caches
@ 2016-06-20 11:26 Nikolay Borisov
2016-06-23 9:43 ` David Sterba
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nikolay Borisov @ 2016-06-20 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: clm, dsterba
Hello,
I have a question regarding the SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT flag with which
BTRFS caches are created. Currently there isn't a single usage of
register_shrinker under fs/btrfs. Apart from the inode cache which is
being shrunk from the generic super_cache_scan I don't think the memory
used for those caches should be accounted as reclaimable?
Regards,
Nikolay
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: On shrinkable caches
2016-06-20 11:26 On shrinkable caches Nikolay Borisov
@ 2016-06-23 9:43 ` David Sterba
2016-06-23 10:03 ` Nikolay Borisov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2016-06-23 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nikolay Borisov; +Cc: linux-btrfs, clm, dsterba
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:26:12PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> I have a question regarding the SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT flag with which
> BTRFS caches are created. Currently there isn't a single usage of
> register_shrinker under fs/btrfs.
The SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT flag has been there since the first versions in
2007 (when shrinkeres did not exist) but I can't find any specific
reason why.
> Apart from the inode cache which is
> being shrunk from the generic super_cache_scan I don't think the memory
> used for those caches should be accounted as reclaimable?
I agree, in most cases I don't see any possibility to reclaim the
objects earlier than the explicit free.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: On shrinkable caches
2016-06-23 9:43 ` David Sterba
@ 2016-06-23 10:03 ` Nikolay Borisov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nikolay Borisov @ 2016-06-23 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dsterba, linux-btrfs, clm
On 06/23/2016 12:43 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:26:12PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> I have a question regarding the SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT flag with which
>> BTRFS caches are created. Currently there isn't a single usage of
>> register_shrinker under fs/btrfs.
>
> The SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT flag has been there since the first versions in
> 2007 (when shrinkeres did not exist) but I can't find any specific
> reason why.
>
>> Apart from the inode cache which is
>> being shrunk from the generic super_cache_scan I don't think the memory
>> used for those caches should be accounted as reclaimable?
>
> I agree, in most cases I don't see any possibility to reclaim the
> objects earlier than the explicit free.
If that's the case, then I'll be happy to send a patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-23 10:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-06-20 11:26 On shrinkable caches Nikolay Borisov
2016-06-23 9:43 ` David Sterba
2016-06-23 10:03 ` Nikolay Borisov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).