Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:16:16 +0100 | From | Jan Kara <> | Subject | Re: shrink_caches inconsistancy |
| |
Hello,
> This patch makes the comments match for icache,dcache,dqcache shrink > functions. Initially the comment stated that a priority of 0 could be used, > but after looking into mm/vmscan.c::shrink_caches this cannot be true. So > the comment now states that 1 is the highest priority. This appears __really > true as at priority 1 all of the cache possible is removed. > > Also shrink_dqcache_memory now uses the count variable like everyone else. > > Possibly incorrect __GFP_FS check added to the dqcache function. but again > consistancy is my goal. This check really isn't needed for shrink_dqcache() function. This function can never recurse into fs so there's no need to have __GFP_FS set.
> Another dqcache issue in that the dqcache was being shrunk at priority+1 > rather than at priority, this looked suspect, and with no comment around the > code, it to has been remanded to consistancy. OK :). If I remeber well I saw 'priority' could be 0 somewhere in the comment and so I added +1 to avoid division by zero. But you're right that code in vmscan.c actually never calls the functions with priority == 0.
Honza - 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/
| |