On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:54:16 -0500 Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> How about this: we allow disabling the log message, but print the line > of the disabling call so it's clear who dunnit. To make sure valuable > info is not missing in bug reports, add counters for the two events in > /proc/vmstat. > > Does that sound acceptable? Yes, I really don't know what's the right thing to do here or where the best tradeoff point is situated. Let's start off this way and see what happens I guess. > --- a/fs/drop_caches.c > +++ b/fs/drop_caches.c > @@ -59,10 +59,22 @@ int drop_caches_sysctl_handler(ctl_table *table, int > write, > if (ret) > return ret; > if (write) { > - if (sysctl_drop_caches & 1) > + static int stfu; That identifier wasn't serious, but I kinda like it. > + > + if (sysctl_drop_caches & 1) { > iterate_supers(drop_pagecache_sb, NULL); > - if (sysctl_drop_caches & 2) > + count_vm_event(DROP_PAGECACHE); > + } > + if (sysctl_drop_caches & 2) { > drop_slab(); > + count_vm_event(DROP_SLAB); > + } > + if (!stfu) { > + pr_info("%s (%d): drop_caches: %d\n", > + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), > + sysctl_drop_caches); > + } > + stfu |= sysctl_drop_caches & 4; > } > return 0; > } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/