On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 18:51:12 +0300 Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]> wrote:
> > - why aren't we decreasing shrinker_nr_max in > > unregister_memcg_shrinker()? That's easy to do, avoids pointless > > work in shrink_slab_memcg() and avoids memory waste in future > > prealloc_memcg_shrinker() calls. > > You sure, but there are some things. Initially I went in the same way > as memcg_nr_cache_ids is made and just took the same x2 arithmetic. > It never decreases, so it looked good to make shrinker maps like it. > It's the only reason, so, it should not be a problem to rework. > > The only moment is Vladimir strongly recommends modularity, i.e. > to have memcg_shrinker_map_size and shrinker_nr_max as different variables. For what reasons? > After the rework we won't be able to have this anymore, since memcontrol.c > will have to know actual shrinker_nr_max value and it will have to be > exported. > > Could this be a problem? Vladimir?
