lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] [RFC] mm/shrinker: Add a shrinker flag to always shrink a bit
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:38:23PM +0200, Knut Petersen wrote:
> On 18.09.2013 11:10, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> Just now I prepared a patch changing the same function in vmscan.c
> >Also, this needs to be rebased to the new shrinker api in 3.12, I
> >simply haven't rolled my trees forward yet.
>
> Well, you should. Since commit 81e49f shrinker->count_objects might be
> set to SHRINK_STOP, causing shrink_slab_node() to complain loud and often:
>
> [ 1908.234595] shrink_slab: i915_gem_inactive_scan+0x0/0x9c negative objects to delete nr=-xxxxxxxxx
>
> The kernel emitted a few thousand log lines like the one quoted above during the
> last few days on my system.
>
> >diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> >index 2cff0d4..d81f6e0 100644
> >--- a/mm/vmscan.c
> >+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> >@@ -254,6 +254,10 @@ unsigned long shrink_slab(struct shrink_control *shrink,
> > total_scan = max_pass;
> > }
> >+ /* Always try to shrink a bit to make forward progress. */
> >+ if (shrinker->evicts_to_page_lru)
> >+ total_scan = max_t(long, total_scan, batch_size);
> >+
> At that place the error message is already emitted.
> > /*
> > * We need to avoid excessive windup on filesystem shrinkers
> > * due to large numbers of GFP_NOFS allocations causing the
>
> Have a look at the attached patch. It fixes my problem with the erroneous/misleading
> error messages, and I think it´s right to just bail out early if SHRINK_STOP is found.
>
> Do you agree ?

No, that's wrong. ->count_objects should never ass SHRINK_STOP.
Indeed, it should always return a count of objects in the cache,
regardless of the context.

SHRINK_STOP is for ->scan_objects to tell the shrinker it can make
any progress due to the context it is called in. This allows the
shirnker to defer the work to another call in a different context.
However, if ->count-objects doesn't return a count, the work that
was supposed to be done cannot be deferred, and that is what
->count_objects should always return the number of objects in the
cache.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-18 23:01    [W:0.085 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site