On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 07:44:33PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
...
> >>@@ -2414,8 +2415,6 @@ int __kmem_cache_shrink(struct kmem_cache *cachep, bool deactivate)
> >> int __kmem_cache_shutdown(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> >> {
> >>- int i;
> >>- struct kmem_cache_node *n;
> >> int rc = __kmem_cache_shrink(cachep, false);
> >> if (rc)
> >>@@ -2423,6 +2422,14 @@ int __kmem_cache_shutdown(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> >> free_percpu(cachep->cpu_cache);
> >And how come ->cpu_cache (and ->cpu_slab in case of SLUB) is special?
> >Can't sysfs access it either? I propose to introduce a method called
> >__kmem_cache_release (instead of __kmem_cache_free_nodes), which would
> >do all freeing, both per-cpu and per-node.
> AFAICS, they aren't used by this sysfs.
They are: alloc_calls_show -> list_locations -> flush_all accesses
->cpu_slab.
Thanks,
Vladimir
> Anyway, seems reasonable, will do.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>