On 10/24/2012 10:54 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Glauber Costa <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 10/19/2012 11:34 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: >>> >>>> I, however, see no reason why we need to do so, since we are now locked >>>> during the whole deletion (which wasn't necessarily true before). I >>>> propose a simplification in which we delete it only when there is no >>>> more going back, so we don't need to add it again. >>> >>> Ok lets hope that holding the lock does not cause issues. >>> >>> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> >>> >> BTW: One of the good things about this set, is that we are naturally >> exercising cache destruction a lot more than we did before. So if there >> is any problem, either with this or anything related to cache >> destruction, it should at least show up a lot more frequently. So far, >> this does not seem to cause any problems. > > We no longer hold the mutex the whole time after. See commit 210ed9d > ("mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy()") for > details. > I will resubmit then.
It doesn't really change the spirit of the patch. I took a look at that fix, and what it does, is it releases the mutex right after kmem_cache_shutdown() succeeds. Removing from the list in there would do the trick. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
