Messages in this thread | | | From | Oskar Andero <> | Date | Wed, 15 May 2013 16:10:57 +0200 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] return value from shrinkers |
| |
On 17:03 Tue 14 May , Glauber Costa wrote: > On 05/13/2013 06:16 PM, Oskar Andero wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In a previous discussion on lkml it was noted that the shrinkers use the > > magic value "-1" to signal that something went wrong. > > > > This patch-set implements the suggestion of instead using errno.h values > > to return something more meaningful. > > > > The first patch simply changes the check from -1 to any negative value and > > updates the comment accordingly. > > > > The second patch updates the shrinkers to return an errno.h value instead > > of -1. Since this one spans over many different areas I need input on what is > > a meaningful return value. Right now I used -EBUSY on everything for consitency. > > > > What do you say? Is this a good idea or does it make no sense at all? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Right now me and Dave are completely reworking the way shrinkers > operate. I suggest, first of all, that you take a look at that cautiously.
Sounds good. Where can one find the code for that?
> On the specifics of what you are doing here, what would be the benefit > of returning something other than -1 ? Is there anything we would do > differently for a return value lesser than 1?
Firstly, what bugs me is the magic and unintuitiveness of using -1 rather than a more descriptive error code. IMO, even a #define SHRINK_ERROR -1 in some header file would be better.
Expanding the test to <0 will open up for more granular error checks, like -EAGAIN, -EBUSY and so on. Currently, they would all be treated the same, but maybe in the future we would like to handle them differently?
Finally, looking at the code: if (shrink_ret == -1) break; if (shrink_ret < nr_before) ret += nr_before - shrink_ret;
This piece of code will only function if shrink_ret is either greater than zero or -1. If shrink_ret is -2 this will lead to undefined behaviour.
> So far, shrink_slab behaves the same, you are just expanding the test. > If you really want to push this through, I would suggest coming up with > a more concrete reason for why this is wanted.
I don't know how well this patch is aligned with your current rework, but based on my comments above, I don't see a reason for not taking it.
-Oskar
| |