On Fri 07-10-16 14:14:01, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:02:00AM -0700, Doug Smythies wrote: > > It was my (limited) understanding that the subsequent 2 patch set > > superseded this patch. Indeed, the 2 patch set seems to solve > > both the SLAB and SLUB bug reports. > > It would mean that patch 1 solves both the SLAB and SLUB bug reports > since patch 2 is only effective for SLUB. > > Reason that I send this patch is that although patch 1 fixes the > issue that too many kworkers are created, kmem_cache creation/destory > is still slowed by synchronize_sched() and it would cause kmemcg > usage counting delayed. I'm not sure how bad it is but it's generally > better to start accounting as soon as possible. With patch 2 for SLUB > and this patch for SLAB, performance of kmem_cache > creation/destory would recover. OK, so do we really want/need it for stable as well. I am not opposing that but the effect doesn't seem to be a clear cut. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>