Re: shrink_caches inconsistancy

[Jan Kara]

  Hello,

> 	This patch makes the comments match for icache,dcache,dqcache   shrink 
> functions.  Initially the comment stated that a priority of 0 could be used, 
> but after looking into mm/vmscan.c::shrink_caches this cannot be true.  So 
> the comment now states that 1 is the highest priority.  This appears __really 
> true as at priority 1 all of the cache possible is removed.
> 
> 	Also shrink_dqcache_memory now uses the count variable like everyone else.
> 	
> 	Possibly incorrect __GFP_FS check added to the dqcache function.  but again 
> consistancy is my goal.  
  This check really isn't needed for shrink_dqcache() function. This function can
never recurse into fs so there's no need to have __GFP_FS set.

> 	Another dqcache issue in that the dqcache was being shrunk at priority+1 
> rather than at priority, this looked suspect, and with no comment around the 
> code, it to has been remanded to consistancy.
  OK :). If I remeber well I saw 'priority' could be 0 somewhere in the comment
and so I added +1 to avoid division by zero. But you're right that code in vmscan.c
actually never calls the functions with priority == 0.

								Honza