From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933447Ab0JSFlD (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:41:03 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:56942 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751501Ab0JSFlB (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:41:01 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 03/35] mm: implement per-zone shrinker Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org In-Reply-To: <20101019053320.GA7470@amd> References: <20101019134345.A1E9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101019053320.GA7470@amd> Message-Id: <20101019143806.A1F5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:40:55 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 01:49:12PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Hi > > > > > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/mm.h > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/mm.h 2010-10-19 14:19:40.000000000 +1100 > > > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/mm.h 2010-10-19 14:36:48.000000000 +1100 > > > @@ -997,6 +997,10 @@ > > > /* > > > * A callback you can register to apply pressure to ageable caches. > > > * > > > + * 'shrink_zone' is the new shrinker API. It is to be used in preference > > > + * to 'shrink'. One must point to a shrinker function, the other must > > > + * be NULL. See 'shrink_slab' for details about the shrink_zone API. > > > ... > > > Now we decided to don't remove old (*shrink)() interface and zone unaware > > slab users continue to use it. so why do we need global argument? > > If only zone aware shrinker user (*shrink_zone)(), we can remove it. > > > > Personally I think we should remove it because a removing makes a clear > > message that all shrinker need to implement zone awareness eventually. > > I agree, I do want to remove the old API, but it's easier to merge if > I just start by adding the new API. It is split out from my previous > patch which does convert all users of the API. When this gets merged, I > will break those out and send them via respective maintainers, then > remove the old API when they're all converted upstream. Ok, I've got. I have no objection this step-by-step development. thanks quick responce!