From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751360AbdAQQuo (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:50:44 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f193.google.com ([209.85.192.193]:34034 "EHLO mail-pf0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751030AbdAQQuB (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:50:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:42:38 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Joonsoo Kim Cc: vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.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 7/8] slab: remove synchronous synchronize_sched() from memcg cache deactivation path Message-ID: <20170117164238.GA28948@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20170114184834.8658-1-tj@kernel.org> <20170114184834.8658-8-tj@kernel.org> <20170117002611.GC25218@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170117002611.GC25218@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> 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 Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 09:26:11AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > + INIT_WORK(&s->memcg_params.deact_work, kmemcg_deactivate_workfn); > > + schedule_work(&s->memcg_params.deact_work); > > +} > > Isn't it better to submit one work item for each memcg like as > Vladimir did? Or, could you submit this work to the ordered workqueue? > I'm not an expert about workqueue like as you, but, I think > that there is a chance to create a lot of threads if there is > the slab_mutex lock contention. Yeah, good point. I'll switch it to its own workqueue w/ concurrency limited to one. Thanks. -- tejun