From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:14:37 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Get rid of scan_control Message-Id: <20060211211437.0633dfdb.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <43EEC136.5060609@yahoo.com.au> References: <20060211045355.GA3318@dmt.cnet> <20060211013255.20832152.akpm@osdl.org> <20060211014649.7cb3b9e2.akpm@osdl.org> <43EEAC93.3000803@yahoo.com.au> <43EEB4DA.6030501@yahoo.com.au> <43EEC136.5060609@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: clameter@engr.sgi.com, marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > > There are downsides to it. I was basically on the fence with its > removal from mainline, because the complexity of parameters going > to/from functions make the improvement borderline. > > But I would have kept it for my internal work, and given Marcelo > is also interested in it I guess it could stay for now (unless > you trump that with some performance numbers I guess). I'm wobbly too. I still hate the thing, but I hate it less after I fixed up some of its straggliness. Returning nr_reclaimed up and down the stack makes sense too - I'll try that. btw, it'd be nice to think of some better function names too. We have: try_to_free_pages ->shrink_caches ->shrink_zone ->shrink_cache ->shrink_list which is fairly irrational. Something like try_to_free_pages ->shrink_zones(struct zone **zones, ..) ->shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...) ->do_shrink_zone(struct zone *, ...) ->shrink_page_list(struct list_head *, ...) perhaps. Maybe s/shrink/reclaim/ just to confuse everyone more. -- 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: email@kvack.org