On Sat, 31 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > ... which means more async workers, more complication to kmemcg code :-( > > Sorry, but I just don't get why we can't make kmem_cache_shrink never > fail? Is failing de-fragmentation, which is even not implied by the > function declaration, so critical that should be noted? If so, we can > return an error while still shrinking empty slabs...
There could be other reasons for failure in the future as kmem_cache_shrink is updated. Requiring kmem_cache_shrink to never fail may cause problems for future modifications. > If you just don't like the code after the patch, here is another, less > intrusive version doing practically the same. Would it be better? That looks acceptable. Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com> -- 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/
