On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 09:33:45PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 02:35:33PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > + /* Should a destroy process be deferred? */ > > + if (s->flags & SLAB_DEFER_DESTROY) { > > + list_move_tail(&s->list, &slab_caches_defer_destroy); > > + schedule_delayed_work(&slab_caches_defer_destroy_work, HZ); > > + goto out_unlock; > > + } > > Wouldn't it be smoother to have the actual kmem_cache_free() function > check to see if it's been marked for destruction and the refcount is > zero, rather than polling every one second? I mentioned this approach > in: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zmo9-YGraiCj5-MI@xxxxxxxxx/ - > > I wonder if the right fix to this would be adding a `should_destroy` > boolean to kmem_cache, which kmem_cache_destroy() sets to true. And > then right after it checks `if (number_of_allocations == 0) > actually_destroy()`, and likewise on each kmem_cache_free(), it > could check `if (should_destroy && number_of_allocations == 0) > actually_destroy()`. > I do not find pooling as bad way we can go with. But your proposal sounds reasonable to me also. We can combine both "prototypes" to one and offer. Can you post a prototype here? Thanks! -- Uladzislau Rezki