Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933819Ab2JXGyK (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:54:10 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:47358 "EHLO mail-wi0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757835Ab2JXGyH (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:54:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5085068E.5080304@parallels.com> References: <1350656442-1523-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1350656442-1523-5-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <0000013a7a84cb28-334eab12-33c4-4a92-bd9c-e5ad938f83d0-000000@email.amazonses.com> <5085068E.5080304@parallels.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:54:05 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _R38PfDSyMGym_OMSYZedGH_EWI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/18] slab: don't preemptively remove element from list in cache destroy From: Pekka Enberg To: Glauber Costa Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, David Rientjes , devel@openvz.org, Suleiman Souhlal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1290 Lines: 27 On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 10/19/2012 11:34 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: >> >>> I, however, see no reason why we need to do so, since we are now locked >>> during the whole deletion (which wasn't necessarily true before). I >>> propose a simplification in which we delete it only when there is no >>> more going back, so we don't need to add it again. >> >> Ok lets hope that holding the lock does not cause issues. >> >> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter >> > BTW: One of the good things about this set, is that we are naturally > exercising cache destruction a lot more than we did before. So if there > is any problem, either with this or anything related to cache > destruction, it should at least show up a lot more frequently. So far, > this does not seem to cause any problems. We no longer hold the mutex the whole time after. See commit 210ed9d ("mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy()") for details. -- 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/