> As I understand it, mem_get0 is a valid (and even more > efficient) way to allocate such objects. The frame cleanup > code should recognize which method to use when deallocating. > If that's broken, we're going to have more numerous and > serious problems than this. I'll look into it further. I don't see anything obviously wrong, but I did find this gem of a comment in mem_get: * I am working around this by performing a regular allocation * , just the way the caller would've done when not using the * mem-pool. That also means, we're not padding the size with * the list_head structure because, this will not be added to * the list of chunks that belong to the mem-pool allocated * initially. * * This is the best we can do without adding functionality for * managing multiple slabs. That does not interest us at present * because it is too much work knowing that a better slab * allocator is coming RSN. Now I'm curious to find out what effect your change will have, but I suspect we'll still be a while figuring this out. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
