From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx159.postini.com [74.125.245.159]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 56D1D6B002B for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:43:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pbbrq2 with SMTP id rq2so359298pbb.14 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:43:46 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 15/16] memcg/sl[au]b: shrink dead caches Message-ID: <20120924174346.GB7694@google.com> References: <1347977530-29755-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1347977530-29755-16-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120921204035.GQ7264@google.com> <506018DC.2020907@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <506018DC.2020907@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, devel@openvz.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner Hello, On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:25:00PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > This is kinda nasty. Do we really need to do this? How long would a > > dead cache stick around? > > Without targeted shrinking, until all objects are manually freed, which > may need to wait global reclaim to kick in. > > In general, if we agree with duplicating the caches, the problem that > they may stick around for some time will not be avoidable. If you have > any suggestions about alternative ways for it, I'm all ears. I don't have much problem with caches sticking around waiting to be reaped. I'm just wondering whether renaming trick is really necessary. > > 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? > > > > Because this branch is marked as unlikely, I would expect it not to be a > big problem. It will be not taken most of the time, and becomes a very > cheap branch. I considered this to be simpler than a deferred work > mechanism. > > If even then, you guys believe this is still too high, I can resort to that. It's still an otherwise unnecessary branch on a very hot path. If you can remove it, there's no reason not to. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org