From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758048Ab2JXITX (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:19:23 -0400 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:41700 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755607Ab2JXITU (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:19:20 -0400 Message-ID: <50881500.9030604@parallels.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:19:12 +0400 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121016 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Enberg CC: Christoph Lameter , , , , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , , David Rientjes , , Suleiman Souhlal Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/18] slab: don't preemptively remove element from list in cache destroy 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/24/2012 10:54 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > 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. > I will resubmit then. It doesn't really change the spirit of the patch. I took a look at that fix, and what it does, is it releases the mutex right after kmem_cache_shutdown() succeeds. Removing from the list in there would do the trick. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/18] slab: don't preemptively remove element from list in cache destroy Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:19:12 +0400 Message-ID: <50881500.9030604@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Pekka Enberg 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 On 10/24/2012 10:54 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > 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. > I will resubmit then. It doesn't really change the spirit of the patch. I took a look at that fix, and what it does, is it releases the mutex right after kmem_cache_shutdown() succeeds. Removing from the list in there would do the trick. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org