Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756307Ab3HWVV2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 17:21:28 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51]:55864 "EHLO mail-ee0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753984Ab3HWVV1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 17:21:27 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 00:20:21 +0300 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Greg KH Cc: Leon Ma , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, ccross@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] LMK: Optimize lowmem_shrink Message-ID: <20130823212021.GA2248@swordfish.minsk.epam.com> References: <1377049265.22148.7.camel@leonma-sh> <20130823164810.GA25863@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130823164810.GA25863@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1627 Lines: 56 On (08/23/13 09:48), Greg KH wrote: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] LMK: Optimize lowmem_shrink > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:41:05AM +0800, Leon Ma wrote: > > From: Leon Ma > > Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:22:38 +0800 > > Subject: [PATCH] LMK: Optimize lowmem_shrink. > > Why is all of this in the patch body? > > And what does "LMK:" stand for? > > > By comparing with selected_oom_score_adj instead of min_score_adj, > > we may do less calculation. > > What does this change? Does it fix a problem? Hello, linux-next since c95dd63d4cc3647643ff502d70c4c1b52947c770 Author: Dave Chinner Date: Fri Aug 16 09:39:54 2013 +1000 drivers: convert shrinkers to new count/scan API does not contain lowmem_shrink(), but lowmem_scan() instead. plus at lest one more patch on top of it (e2bfaf75e763396b7baa7c1effa4053d7f19e6d3): [..] -static int lowmem_shrink(struct shrinker *s, struct shrink_control *sc) +static long lowmem_scan(struct shrinker *s, struct shrink_control *sc) [..] wouldn't it be better to have the patch against -next in this case (in case it fixes anything)? thanks, -ss > thanks, > > greg k-h > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@linuxdriverproject.org > http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/