On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:46:13 +0800 Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/08/2012 06:35 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 10:11:32AM +0800, Sha Zhengju wrote: > >> On 03/08/2012 07:08 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > >>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:13:24PM +0800, Sha Zhengju wrote: > >>>> From: Sha Zhengju<handai.szj@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> When the last event is unregistered, there is no need to keep the spare > >>>> array anymore. So free it to avoid memory leak. > >>> It's not a leak. It will be freed on next event register. > >> > >> Yeah, I noticed that. But what if it is just the last one and no more > >> event registering ? > > See my question below. ;) > > > >>> Yeah, we don't have to keep spare if primary is empty. But is it worth to > >>> make code more complicated to save few bytes of memory? > >>> > If we unregister the last event and *don't* register a new event anymore, > the primary is freed but the spare is still kept which has no chance to > free. > > IMHO, it's obvious not a problem of saving bytes but *memory leak*. > IMHO, it's cached. It will be freed when a memcg is destroyed. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>