Re: Memory allocator semantics

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

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@linux.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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>