Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm/shrinker: make unregister_shrinker() less fragile

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:52:53PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Why? In some sense, shrinker callbacks are just a way to be nice.
> No one writes a driver just to be able to handle shrinker calls. An
> ability to react to those calls is just additional option; it does
> not directly affect or limit driver's functionality (at least, it
> really should not).

No, they are not just nice.  They are a fundamental part of memory
management and required to reclaim (often large) amounts of memory.

Nevermind that we don't ignore any other registration time error in
the kernel.

> > The right way forward is to handle register failure properly.
> 
> In other words, to
>  (a) keep a flag to signify that register was not successful
> or
>  (b) look at ->shrinker.list.next or ->nr_deferred
> or
>  (c) treat register failures as critical errors. (I sort of
>      disagree with you here).

The only important part is here is (c).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/