On Tue, 22 May 2012, David Rientjes wrote: > 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. g_cpucache_up <= EARLY is slab bootstrap code and the system is in a pretty fragile state. Plus the the kmalloc logic *depends* on these caches being present. Removing those is not a good idea. The other caches that are created at that point are needed to create more caches. There is no reason to remove these caches. > 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]. Yeah that is already occurring for some of the boot caches. -- 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>