On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:45:31 +0200 Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.cz> wrote:
> On Mon 29-07-13 13:57:43, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:44:29 +0200 Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.cz> wrote:
> [...]
> > > --- a/fs/drop_caches.c
> > > +++ b/fs/drop_caches.c
> > > @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ int drop_caches_sysctl_handler(ctl_table *table, int
> > > write,
> > > if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > > if (write) {
> > > + printk(KERN_INFO "%s (%d): dropped kernel caches: %d\n",
> > > + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), sysctl_drop_caches);
> > > if (sysctl_drop_caches & 1)
> > > iterate_supers(drop_pagecache_sb, NULL);
> > > if (sysctl_drop_caches & 2)
> >
> > How about we do
> >
> > if (!(sysctl_drop_caches & 4))
> > printk(....)
> >
> > so people can turn it off if it's causing problems?
>
> I am OK with that but can we use a top bit instead. Maybe we never have
> other entities to drop in the future but it would be better to have a room
> for them
> just in case.
If we add another flag in the future it can use bit 3?
> So what about using 1<<31 instead?
Could, but negative (or is it positive?) numbers are a bit of a pain.
--
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/
