Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:27:58 -0700 josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> I agree with that.  I'm wondering if, rather than making the
> SRCU-ification optional, shrinkers themselves could just be optional.
> Unless I'm badly misunderstanding what shrinkers do, they seem like a
> perfect example of something that could be omitted with little to no
> impact.  (Stub them out, make them never called, and if you run out of
> memory just be unhappy.  Ditto for the oom-killer, which really ought to
> be optional.)

The shrinkers do important stuff ;) "find /" will consume large amounts
of memory for inode and dentry caches.  The shrinkers are how we free
that up again.

--
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/