lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] mm/shrinker: make unregister_shrinker() less fragile
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:52:53PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Why? In some sense, shrinker callbacks are just a way to be nice.
> No one writes a driver just to be able to handle shrinker calls. An
> ability to react to those calls is just additional option; it does
> not directly affect or limit driver's functionality (at least, it
> really should not).

No, they are not just nice. They are a fundamental part of memory
management and required to reclaim (often large) amounts of memory.

Nevermind that we don't ignore any other registration time error in
the kernel.

> > The right way forward is to handle register failure properly.
>
> In other words, to
> (a) keep a flag to signify that register was not successful
> or
> (b) look at ->shrinker.list.next or ->nr_deferred
> or
> (c) treat register failures as critical errors. (I sort of
> disagree with you here).

The only important part is here is (c).


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-13 11:21    [W:0.053 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site