On 12/19/2013 12:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 19-12-13 10:32:29, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>> On 12/18/2013 09:06 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 18-12-13 17:16:53, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>>>> Plus, rename memcg_register_cache() to memcg_init_cache_params(),
>>>> because it actually does not register the cache anywhere, but simply
>>>> initialize kmem_cache::memcg_params.
>>> I've almost missed this is a memory leak fix.
>> Yeah, the comment is poor, sorry about that. Will fix it.
>>
>>> I do not mind renaming and the name but wouldn't
>>> memcg_alloc_cache_params suit better?
>> As you wish. I don't have a strong preference for memcg_init_cache_params.
> I really hate naming... but it seems that alloc is a better fit. _init_
> would expect an already allocated object.
>
> Btw. memcg_free_cache_params is called only once which sounds
> suspicious. The regular destroy path should use it as well?
> [...]
The usual destroy path uses memcg_release_cache(), which does the trick.
Plus, it actually "unregisters" the cache. BTW, I forgot to substitute
kfree(s->memcg_params) with the new memcg_free_cache_params() there.
Although it currently does not break anything, better to fix it in case
new memcg_free_cache_params() will have to do something else.
And you're right about the naming is not good.
Currently we have:
on create:
memcg_register_cache()
memcg_cache_list_add()
on destroy:
memcg_release_cache()
After this patch we would have:
on create:
memcg_alloc_cache_params()
memcg_register_cache()
on destroy:
memcg_release_cache()
Still not perfect: "alloc" does not have corresponding "free", while
"register" does not have corresponding "unregister", everything is done
by "release".
What do you think about splitting memcg_release_cache() into two functions:
memcg_unregister_cache()
memcg_free_cache_params()
?
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
