Hi,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:25:54PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:38:22AM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > @@ -3368,7 +3379,8 @@ static void free_block(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void **objpp, int nr_objects,
> >
> > /* fixup slab chains */
> > if (page->active == 0) {
> > - if (n->free_objects > n->free_limit) {
> > + if (n->free_objects > n->free_limit ||
> > + memcg_cache_dead(cachep)) {
>
> I'd like to set 0 to free_limit in __kmem_cache_shrink()
> rather than memcg_cache_dead() test here, because memcg_cache_dead()
> is more expensive than it. Is there any problem in this way?
We'd have to be careful on cpu hotplug then, because it may update the
free_limit. Not a big problem though. Will fix.
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>