On Tue, 22 May 2012, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > [ v2: Also dup string for early caches, requested by David Rientjes ] > > kstrdups that early could cause additional issues. Its better to leave > things as they were. > No, it's not, there's no reason to prevent caches created before g_cpucache_up <= EARLY to be destroyed because it makes a patch easier to implement and then leave that little gotcha as an undocumented treasure for someone to find when they try it later on. I hate consistency patches like this because it could potentially fail a kmem_cache_create() from a sufficiently long cache name when it wouldn't have before, but I'm not really concerned since kmem_cache_create() will naturally be followed by kmem_cache_alloc() which is more likely to cause the oom anyway. But it's just another waste of memory for consistency sake. This is much easier to do, just statically allocate the const char *'s needed for the boot caches and then set their ->name's manually in kmem_cache_init() and then avoid the kfree() in kmem_cache_destroy() if the name is between &boot_cache_name[0] and &boot_cache_name[n]. -- 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>