Re: [patch 21/26] Slab defragmentation: support dentry defragmentation

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > +			 * objects.
> > +			 */
> > +			abort = 1;
> 
> It's unobvious why the entire shrink effort is abandoned if one busy dentry
> is encountered.  Please flesh the comment out explaining this.

If one item is busy then we cannot reclaim the slab. So what would be the 
use of continuing efforts. I thought I put that into the description? I 
can put that into the code too.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [patch 00/26] Current slab allocator / SLUB patch queue
    • From: [email protected]
  • [patch 21/26] Slab defragmentation: support dentry defragmentation
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: [patch 21/26] Slab defragmentation: support dentry defragmentation
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH RFC #2] hwrng: Add type categories
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 5/5] via82cxxx: backport short cables support from pata_via.c
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 21/26] Slab defragmentation: support dentry defragmentation
• Next by thread: [patch 24/26] SLUB: Avoid page struct cacheline bouncing due to remote frees to cpu slab
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]