From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx184.postini.com [74.125.245.184]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97DDD6B0068 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id dq12so114863wgb.26 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:54:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/18] slab: don't preemptively remove element from list in cache destroy From: Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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 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, 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/18] slab: don't preemptively remove element from list in cache destroy Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:54:05 +0300 Message-ID: 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 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UVFnln0c2ERbYtp5pdPFnmryEIt2e7X1VPPe7Ze8FmQ=; b=XSH1CozhaltTbqHCZALFVORCQp1WByEoQh7OBv1YNb8MBGsoIaiL0jA0RwlByM5w/W iGDAlrQNGY5maaK0/A5JZU+I13JL9T6hOrG7LWxZlSykxfiVKJfX8CRquxSEPnr516UO EYwI5CQ/mzyrFbePKbq3y+e6FfUfIqK7pfOh3ScSbX0ZKZf4a811U+XvfzNGYg4ur939 hyjPiv/M/7orC52otGzYKVA7fDAYveyd0Wn2oJ9NqlVQ9POPTvI92s0DH8Tb9PU68/l5 5sWqWOd8DEA9gdRJ1p3KXR+pG6mro66H2iQqcVimntrG6Hc8XD7vgVdn+ADzwCGKrTLR 1uZg== In-Reply-To: <5085068E.5080304-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Glauber Costa Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, David Rientjes , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Suleiman Souhlal 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.