From: Peter Enderborg
Fundamental changes:
1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need to do
shinker will know when it is pointless to call scan.
3 It does not lock any other process than the
From: Peter Enderborg
Fundamental changes:
1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need to do
shinker will know when it is pointless to call scan.
3 It does not lock any other process than the one that is
going to be
On Fri 10-02-17 08:39:11, peter enderborg wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 09:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 09-02-17 14:21:52, peter enderborg wrote:
> >> Fundamental changes:
> >> 1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
> >> 2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need
On Fri 10-02-17 08:39:11, peter enderborg wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 09:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 09-02-17 14:21:52, peter enderborg wrote:
> >> Fundamental changes:
> >> 1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
> >> 2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need
On 02/09/2017 09:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 09-02-17 14:21:52, peter enderborg wrote:
>> Fundamental changes:
>> 1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
>> 2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need to do
>> shinker will know when it is pointless to call
On 02/09/2017 09:05 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 09-02-17 14:21:52, peter enderborg wrote:
>> Fundamental changes:
>> 1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
>> 2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need to do
>> shinker will know when it is pointless to call
On Thu 09-02-17 14:21:52, peter enderborg wrote:
> Fundamental changes:
> 1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
> 2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need to do
> shinker will know when it is pointless to call scan.
> 3 It does not lock any other process than
On Thu 09-02-17 14:21:52, peter enderborg wrote:
> Fundamental changes:
> 1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
> 2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need to do
> shinker will know when it is pointless to call scan.
> 3 It does not lock any other process than
Fundamental changes:
1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need to do
shinker will know when it is pointless to call scan.
3 It does not lock any other process than the one that is
going to be killed.
Background.
The low
Fundamental changes:
1 Does NOT take any RCU lock in shrinker functions.
2 It returns same result for scan and counts, so we dont need to do
shinker will know when it is pointless to call scan.
3 It does not lock any other process than the one that is
going to be killed.
Background.
The low
10 matches
Mail list logo