On 05/23/2012 07:55 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
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].
That can be done.
I'll also revisit my memcg patches to see if I can rework it so it
doesn't care about this particular behavior. We're having a surprisingly
difficult time reaching consensus on this, so maybe it would be better
left untouched (if there is a way that makes sense to)
--
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>