On Fri 22-03-13 14:03:30, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 01:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 22-03-13 13:41:40, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >> On 03/22/2013 01:31 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Fri 22-03-13 12:22:23, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >>>> On 03/22/2013 12:17 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> >>>>>> GFP_TEMPORARY groups short lived allocations but the mem cache is not
> >>>>>>> an ideal candidate of this type of allocations..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure I'm following you...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> char *memcg_cache_name()
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> char *name = alloc();
> >>>>> return name;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> kmem_cache_dup()
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> name = memcg_cache_name();
> >>>>> kmem_cache_create_memcg(name);
> >>>>> free(name);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Isn't this a short lived allocation?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for identifying and fixing this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Li is right. The cache name will live long, but this is because the
> >>>> slab/slub caches will strdup it internally. So the actual memcg
> >>>> allocation is short lived.
> >>>
> >>> OK, I have totally missed that. Sorry about the confusion. Then all the
> >>> churn around the allocation is pointless, no?
> >>> What about:
> >>
> >> If we're really not concerned about stack, then yes. Even if always
> >> running from workqueues, a PAGE_SIZEd stack variable seems risky to me.
> >
> > This is not on stack. It is static
> >
> Ah, right, I totally missed that. And then you're taking the mutex.
>
> But actually, you don't need to take the mutex. All calls to
> kmem_cache_dup are protected by the memcg_cache_mutex.
Yes and I am not taking that mutex. I've just added lockdep assert to
make sure that this still holds true.
> So you should be able to just use the buffer without further problems.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>