[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190703065628.GK978@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 08:56:28 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, slab: Extend slab/shrink to shrink all the memcg
caches
On Tue 02-07-19 14:37:30, Waiman Long wrote:
> Currently, a value of '1" is written to /sys/kernel/slab/<slab>/shrink
> file to shrink the slab by flushing all the per-cpu slabs and free
> slabs in partial lists. This applies only to the root caches, though.
>
> Extends this capability by shrinking all the child memcg caches and
> the root cache when a value of '2' is written to the shrink sysfs file.
Why do we need a new value for this functionality? I would tend to think
that skipping memcg caches is a bug/incomplete implementation. Or is it
a deliberate decision to cover root caches only?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists