On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro <
kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> > Hmm, got Nick's email wrong.
> >
> > --Ying
>
> Ping.
> Can you please explain current status? When I can see your answer?
>

The patch has been merged into mmotm-04-29-16-25. Sorry if there is a
question that I missed ?

--Ying

>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:47 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> >> <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >>>> > >  {
> >>>> > >       struct xfs_mount *mp;
> >>>> > >       struct xfs_perag *pag;
> >>>> > >       xfs_agnumber_t  ag;
> >>>> > >       int             reclaimable;
> >>>> > > +     int nr_to_scan = sc->nr_slab_to_reclaim;
> >>>> > > +     gfp_t gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask;
> >>>> >
> >>>> > And, this very near meaning field .nr_scanned and
> .nr_slab_to_reclaim
> >>>> > poped up new question.
> >>>> > Why don't we pass more clever slab shrinker target? Why do we need
> pass
> >>>> > similar two argument?
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> I renamed the nr_slab_to_reclaim and nr_scanned in shrink struct.
> >>>
> >>> Oh no. that's not naming issue. example, Nick's previous similar patch
> pass
> >>> zone-total-pages and how-much-scanned-pages. (ie shrink_slab don't
> calculate
> >>> current magical target scanning objects anymore)
> >>>        ie,  "4 *  max_pass  * (scanned / nr- lru_pages-in-zones)"
> >>>
> >>> Instead, individual shrink_slab callback calculate this one.
> >>> see git://
> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git
> >>>
> >>> I'm curious why you change the design from another guy's previous very
> similar effort and
> >>> We have to be convinced which is better.
> >>
> >> Thank you for the pointer. My patch is intended to consolidate all
> >> existing parameters passed from reclaim code
> >> to the shrinker.
> >>
> >> Talked w/ Nick and Andrew from last LSF,  we agree that this patch
> >> will be useful for other extensions later which allows us easily
> >> adding extensions to the shrinkers without shrinker files. Nick and I
> >> talked about the effort later to pass the nodemask down to the
> >> shrinker. He is cc-ed in the thread. Another thing I would like to
> >> repost is to add the reclaim priority down to the shrinker, which we
> >> won't throw tons of page caches pages by reclaiming one inode slab
> >> object.
> >>
> >> --Ying
>
>
>