Hi Christoph,

On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:11:42PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
quoted text
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/slab.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/slab.h	2007-11-06 12:37:51.000000000 -0800
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/slab.h	2007-11-06 12:53:40.000000000 -0800
> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *
>  unsigned int kmem_cache_size(struct kmem_cache *);
>  const char *kmem_cache_name(struct kmem_cache *);
>  int kmem_ptr_validate(struct kmem_cache *cachep, const void *ptr);
> +int kmem_cache_defrag(int node);

The definition in slab.c always returns 0.  Wouldn't a static inline
function in the header be better?


quoted text
>   * Returns the number of slab objects which we shrunk.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
quoted text
>   */
>  unsigned long shrink_slab(unsigned long scanned, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> -                       unsigned long lru_pages)
> +                       unsigned long lru_pages, struct zone *zone)
>  {
>         struct shrinker *shrinker;
>         unsigned long ret = 0;
> @@ -210,6 +218,8 @@ unsigned long shrink_slab(unsigned long
>                 shrinker->nr += total_scan;
>         }
>         up_read(&shrinker_rwsem);
> +       if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)
> +               kmem_cache_defrag(zone ? zone_to_nid(zone) : -1);
>         return ret;
>  }

What about the objects that kmem_cache_defrag() releases?  Shouldn't
they be counted too?

     ret += kmem_cache_defrag(...)

Or am I overseeing something here?

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