On 09/25/2012 12:14 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:02:16AM +0800, zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Zhi Yong Wu<wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Some code pathes forget to free memory on exit.
Same as with the fd's, kernel will free all memory for us at exit().
I strongly disagree with this approach. The callee often don't know what
happen after and before the call. The same is true for the programmer,
because the code is quite often updated by several people. A clean
exit() is the right thing to do as general rule. I don't see any valid
reason (in the btrfs context) to do otherwise.
Relying on the exit() for a proper clean-up increase the likelihood of
bug when the code evolves (see my patch [RESPOST][BTRFS-PROGS][PATCH]
btrfs_read_dev_super(): uninitialized variable for an example of what
means an incorrect deallocation of resource).
If there's lots of memory allocated, it may be even faster to leave the
unallocation process to kernel as it will do it in one go, while the
application would unnecessarily free it chunk by chunk.
May be I am wrong, but I don't think that the increase of speed of the
btrfs "command" is even measurable relying on exit instead of free()-ing
each chunk of memory one at time.... The same should be true for the
open()/close()
My 2ยข
BR
G.Baroncelli
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
