Re: Memory allocator semantics

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:43:35PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I am not sure that this side effect necessarily happens. The SLUB fastpath
> does not disable interrupts and only uses a cmpxchg without lock
> semantics.

That tells me what I need to know.  Users should definitely not try a
"drive-by kfree()" of something that was concurrently allocated.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/