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
--
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>
