Re: Memory allocator semantics

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Paul,

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From what I can see, (A) works by accident, but is kind of useless because
> you allocate and free the memory without touching it.  (B) and (C) are the
> lightest touches I could imagine, and as you say, both are bad.  So I
> believe that it is reasonable to prohibit (A).
>
> Or is there some use for (A) that I am missing?

So again, there's nothing in (A) that the memory allocator is
concerned about.  kmalloc() makes no guarantees whatsoever about the
visibility of "r1" across CPUs.  If you're saying that there's an
implicit barrier between kmalloc() and kfree(), that's an unintended
side-effect, not a design decision AFAICT.

                                 Pekka

--
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>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]