On 06/18/2012 04:07 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: > (2012/06/18 19:27), Glauber Costa wrote: >> Right now we free struct memcg with kfree right after a >> rcu grace period, but defer it if we need to use vfree() to get >> rid of that memory area. We do that by need, because we need vfree >> to be called in a process context. >> >> This patch unifies this behavior, by ensuring that even kfree will >> happen in a separate thread. The goal is to have a stable place to >> call the upcoming jump label destruction function outside the realm >> of the complicated and quite far-reaching cgroup lock (that can't be >> held when calling neither the cpu_hotplug.lock nor the jump_label_mutex) >> >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> CC: Tejun Heo<tj@xxxxxxxxxx> >> CC: Li Zefan<lizefan@xxxxxxxxxx> >> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> CC: Johannes Weiner<hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> CC: Michal Hocko<mhocko@xxxxxxx> > > How about cut out this patch and merge first as simple cleanu up and > to reduce patch stack on your side ? > > Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I believe this is already in the -mm tree (from the sock memcg fixes) But actually, my main trouble with this series here, is that I am basing it on Pekka's tree, while some of the fixes are in -mm already. If I'd base it on -mm I would lose some of the stuff as well. Maybe Pekka can merge the current -mm with his tree? So far I am happy with getting comments from people about the code, so I did not get overly concerned about that. -- 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>