On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <cl@xxxxxxxxx> >> > 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 cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html