On 10/4/24 7:26 PM, Zhu Yanjun wrote: > > ? 2024/10/5 0:31, Bart Van Assche ??: >> On 10/4/24 5:40 AM, Zhu Yanjun wrote: >>> So I add a jiffies (u64) value into the name. >> >> I don't think that embedding the value of the jiffies counter in the kmem cache names is sufficient to make cache names unique. That sounds like a fragile approach to me. > > Sorry. I can not get you. Why jiffies counter is not sufficient to > make cache names unique? And why is it a fragile approach? 1 jiffy is an eternity, what happens if someone calls kmem_cache_create() twice in that window? > I read your latest commit. In your commit, the ida is used to make > cache names unique. It is a good approach if it can fix this problem. That seems over-engineered. Seems to me that either these things should share a slab cache (why do they need one each, if they are the same sized object?!). And if they really do need one, surely something ala: static atomic_long_t slab_index; sprintf(slab_name, "foo-%ld", atomic_inc_return(&slab_index)); would be all you need. -- Jens Axboe
