Re: [PATCH] lowmemorykiller: prevent multiple instances of lowmemory killer

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Mon Apr 15 2013 - 15:49:54 EST

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 08:28:07PM +0200, Dolkow, Snild wrote:
> >> > >From the comments in shrinker.h:
> >> > "It should return the number of objects which remain in the cache.
> >> > If it returns -1, it means it cannot do any scanning at this time
> >> > (eg. there is a risk of deadlock). The callback must not return -1
> >> > if nr_to_scan is zero."
> >>
> >
> >IMO one should use the errno.h values - e.g. EBUSY might be a good value
> >in this case. Does anyone know why the shrinker wants -1? Is there a
> >reason?
> The positive numbers are used to return information on the remaining
> cache size (again, see the comment I pasted above). We could use
> -EBUSY, but we'd have to change vmscan.c, which checks specifically
> for -1. I can't see a technical reason why -EBUSY couldn't have been
> chosen instead, but there's also no real reason to change it now.

If it's not the correct thing to do, sure we can change it, just send a
patch. It makes way more sense than some random -1 return value to me.

Care to send a series of patches fixing this up properly?


greg k-h
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at