Re: [PATCH -mm 5/8] slab: remove kmem_cache_shrink retval

2014-06-03 Thread Vladimir Davydov
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:48:51AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > Still, I really want to evict all empty slabs from cache on memcg > > offline for sure. Handling failures there means introducing a worker > > that will retry shrinking, but that

Re: [PATCH -mm 5/8] slab: remove kmem_cache_shrink retval

2014-06-03 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Still, I really want to evict all empty slabs from cache on memcg > offline for sure. Handling failures there means introducing a worker > that will retry shrinking, but that seems to me as an unnecessary > complication, because there's nothing that ca

Re: [PATCH -mm 5/8] slab: remove kmem_cache_shrink retval

2014-06-03 Thread Vladimir Davydov
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:16:03AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Sat, 31 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > > Well slub returns an error code if it fails > > > > ... to sort slabs by the nubmer of objects in use, which is not even > > implied by the function declaration. Why can *shrin

Re: [PATCH -mm 5/8] slab: remove kmem_cache_shrink retval

2014-06-02 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Sat, 31 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > Well slub returns an error code if it fails > > ... to sort slabs by the nubmer of objects in use, which is not even > implied by the function declaration. Why can *shrinking*, which is what > kmem_cache_shrink must do at first place, ever fail? Be

Re: [PATCH -mm 5/8] slab: remove kmem_cache_shrink retval

2014-05-31 Thread Vladimir Davydov
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 09:49:55AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > First, nobody uses it. Second, it differs across the implementations: > > for SLUB it always returns 0, for SLAB it returns 0 if the cache appears > > to be empty. So let's get r

Re: [PATCH -mm 5/8] slab: remove kmem_cache_shrink retval

2014-05-30 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Fri, 30 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > First, nobody uses it. Second, it differs across the implementations: > for SLUB it always returns 0, for SLAB it returns 0 if the cache appears > to be empty. So let's get rid of it. Well slub returns an error code if it fails. I am all in favor of

[PATCH -mm 5/8] slab: remove kmem_cache_shrink retval

2014-05-30 Thread Vladimir Davydov
First, nobody uses it. Second, it differs across the implementations: for SLUB it always returns 0, for SLAB it returns 0 if the cache appears to be empty. So let's get rid of it. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov --- include/linux/slab.h |2 +- mm/slab.c| 11 --- mm/slab