Re: [PATCH] mm, slab: eagerly delete inactive offlined SLABs

2018-03-26 Thread Shakeel Butt
+Tejun, Johannes Hi Vladimir, On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Hello Shakeel, > > The patch makes sense to me, but I have a concern about synchronization > of cache destruction vs concurrent kmem_cache_free. Please, see my > comments inline. > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at

Re: [PATCH] mm, slab: eagerly delete inactive offlined SLABs

2018-03-24 Thread Vladimir Davydov
Hello Shakeel, The patch makes sense to me, but I have a concern about synchronization of cache destruction vs concurrent kmem_cache_free. Please, see my comments inline. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 03:43:01PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > With kmem cgroup support, high memcgs churn can leave behind a

Re: [PATCH] mm, slab: eagerly delete inactive offlined SLABs

2018-03-23 Thread Michal Hocko
[Cc Vladimir] On Wed 21-03-18 15:43:01, Shakeel Butt wrote: > With kmem cgroup support, high memcgs churn can leave behind a lot of > empty kmem_caches. Usually such kmem_caches will be destroyed when the > corresponding memcg gets released but the memcg release can be > arbitrarily delayed. These