On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:50:24AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > 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. Thank you. That was what I suspected, and I believe that it is a completely reasonable response to (A). Thanx, Paul -- 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>