From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751312AbdANPiG (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:38:06 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:32956 "EHLO mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750802AbdANPiE (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:38:04 -0500 Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:38:01 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jsvana@fb.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] slab: simplify shutdown_memcg_caches() Message-ID: <20170114153801.GB32693@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20170114055449.11044-1-tj@kernel.org> <20170114055449.11044-4-tj@kernel.org> <20170114132722.GB2668@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170114132722.GB2668@esperanza> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 04:27:22PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > - * Second, shutdown all caches left from memory cgroups that are now > > - * offline. > > + * Shutdown all caches. > > */ > > list_for_each_entry_safe(c, c2, &s->memcg_params.list, > > memcg_params.list) > > shutdown_cache(c); > > The point of this complexity was to leave caches that happen to have > objects when kmem_cache_destroy() is called on the list, so that they > could be reused later. This behavior was inherited from the global Ah, right, I misread the branch. I don't quite get how the cache can be reused later tho? This is called when the memcg gets released and a clear error condition - the caller, kmem_cache_destroy(), handles it as an error condition too. > caches - if kmem_cache_destroy() is called on a cache that still has > object, we print a warning message and don't destroy the cache. This > patch changes this behavior. Hmm... yeah, we're missing the error return propagation. I think that's the only meaningful difference tho, right? Will update the patch. Thanks! -- tejun