On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:24:22 +0800 Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/09/2012 09:24 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > 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. > > I didn't see that behavior. Could you point it out ? :-) > I'm sorry I misundersttood the behavior. I'll read your patch again. 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>