From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.246]:46573 "EHLO mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726016AbfHFVG0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:06:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 07:05:15 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/24] xfs: correctly acount for reclaimable slabs Message-ID: <20190806210515.GF7777@dread.disaster.area> References: <20190801021752.4986-1-david@fromorbit.com> <20190801021752.4986-13-david@fromorbit.com> <20190806055249.GB25736@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190806055249.GB25736@infradead.org> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 10:52:49PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:17:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > The XFS inode item slab actually reclaimed by inode shrinker > > callbacks from the memory reclaim subsystem. These should be marked > > as reclaimable so the mm subsystem has the full picture of how much > > memory it can actually reclaim from the XFS slab caches. > > Looks good, > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > Btw, I wonder if we should just kill off our KM_ZONE_* defined. They > just make it a little harder to figure out what is actually going on > without a real benefit. Yeah, they don't serve much purpose now, it might be worth cleaning up. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com