Re: [PATCH 1/2] vmscan: fix initial shrinker size handling

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:22:57 +1000
Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 02:17:21PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > Shrinker function can returns -1, it means it cannot do anything without a risk of deadlock.
> > For example prune_super() do this if it cannot grab superblock refrence, even if nr_to_scan=0.
> > Currenly we interpret this like ULONG_MAX size shrinker, evaluate total_scan according this,
> > and next time this shrinker can get really big pressure. Let's skip such shrinkers instead.
> > 
> > Also make total_scan signed, otherwise check (total_scan < 0) below never works.
> 
> I've got a patch set I am going to post out today that makes this
> irrelevant.

Well, how serious is the bug?  If it's a non-issue then we can leave
the fix until 3.1.  If it's a non-non-issue then we'd need a minimal
patch to fix up 3.1 and 3.0.x.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/