Hi Glauber. 2012/9/18 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c > index 0b68d15..9d79216 100644 > --- a/mm/slub.c > +++ b/mm/slub.c > @@ -2602,6 +2602,7 @@ redo: > } else > __slab_free(s, page, x, addr); > > + kmem_cache_verify_dead(s); > } As far as u know, I am not a expert and don't know anything about memcg. IMHO, this implementation may hurt system performance in some case. In case of memcg is destoried, remained kmem_cache is marked "dead". After it is marked, every free operation to this "dead" kmem_cache call kmem_cache_verify_dead() and finally call kmem_cache_shrink(). kmem_cache_shrink() do invoking kmalloc and flush_all() and taking a lock for online node and invoking kfree. Especially, flush_all() may hurt performance largely, because it call has_cpu_slab() against all the cpus. And I know some other case it can hurt system performance. But, I don't mention it, because above case is sufficient to worry. And, I found one case that destroying memcg's kmem_cache don't works properly. If we destroy memcg after all object is freed, current implementation doesn't destroy kmem_cache. kmem_cache_destroy_work_func() check "cachep->memcg_params.nr_pages == 0", but in this case, it return false, because kmem_cache may have cpu_slab, and cpu_partials_slabs. As we already free all objects, kmem_cache_verify_dead() is not invoked forever. I think that we need another kmem_cache_shrink() in kmem_cache_destroy_work_func(). I don't convince that I am right, so think carefully my humble opinion. Thanks. -- 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>