[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51530E1E.3010100@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:19:58 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: fix memcg_cache_name() to use cgroup_name()
On 03/27/2013 07:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 27-03-13 10:58:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 09:36:39AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> + /*
>>> + * kmem_cache_create_memcg duplicates the given name and
>>> + * cgroup_name for this name requires RCU context.
>>> + * This static temporary buffer is used to prevent from
>>> + * pointless shortliving allocation.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!tmp_name) {
>>> + tmp_name = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!tmp_name);
>>
>> Just use the page allocator directly and get a free allocation failure
>> warning.
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE is probably pointless.
>
>> Then again, order-0 pages are considered cheap enough that they never
>> even fail in our current implementation.
>>
>> Which brings me to my other point: why not just a simple single-page
>> allocation?
>
> No objection from me. I was previously thinking about the "proper"
> size for something that is a file name. So I originally wanted to use
> PATH_MAX instead but ended up with PAGE_SIZE for reasons I do not
> remember now.
theoretically, this is PATH_MAX + max cache name.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists