On 2016.10.05 23:35 Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:04:27PM -0700, Doug Smythies wrote: >> On 2016.09.30 12:59 Vladimir Davydov wrote: >> >>> Yeah, you're right. We'd better do something about this >>> synchronize_sched(). I think moving it out of the slab_mutex and calling >>> it once for all caches in memcg_deactivate_kmem_caches() would resolve >>> the issue. I'll post the patches tomorrow. >> >> Would someone please be kind enough to send me the patch set? >> >> I didn't get them, and would like to test them. >> I have searched and searched and did manage to find: >> "[PATCH 2/2] slub: move synchronize_sched out of slab_mutex on shrink" >> And a thread about a patch 1 of 2: >> "Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: memcontrol: use special workqueue for creating per-memcg caches" >> Where I see me as "reported by", but I guess "reported by" people don't get the e-mails. >> I haven't found PATCH 0/2, nor do I know if what I did find is current. > > I think that what you find is correct one. It has no cover-letter so > there is no [PATCH 0/2]. Anyway, to clarify, I add links to these > patches. > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9361853 > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9359271 > > It would be very helpful if you test these patches. Yes, as best as I am able to test, the 2 patch set solves both this SLAB and the other SLUB bug reports. -- 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>