Hello, Glauber. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:12:09PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > @@ -764,10 +777,21 @@ static struct kmem_cache *memcg_create_kmem_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > goto out; > } > > + /* > + * Because the cache is expected to duplicate the string, > + * we must make sure it has opportunity to copy its full > + * name. Only now we can remove the dead part from it > + */ > + name = (char *)new_cachep->name; > + if (name) > + name[strlen(name) - 4] = '\0'; This is kinda nasty. Do we really need to do this? How long would a dead cache stick around? > diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c > index bd9928f..6cb4abf 100644 > --- a/mm/slab.c > +++ b/mm/slab.c > @@ -3785,6 +3785,8 @@ static inline void __cache_free(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void *objp, > } > > ac_put_obj(cachep, ac, objp); > + > + kmem_cache_verify_dead(cachep); Reaping dead caches doesn't exactly sound like a high priority thing and adding a branch to hot path for that might not be the best way to do it. Why not schedule an extremely lazy deferrable delayed_work which polls for emptiness, say, every miniute or whatever? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>