[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140211120915.GP4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 04:09:16 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: Memory allocator semantics
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@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> 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 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