linux-kernel - Re: [S+Q3 03/23] slub: Use a constant for a unspecified node.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008050036520.29020@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Aug 2010 00:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [S+Q3 03/23] slub: Use a constant for a unspecified node.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> > >  static struct page *get_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct page *page;
> > > -	int searchnode = (node == -1) ? numa_node_id() : node;
> > > +	int searchnode = (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? numa_node_id() : node;
> > >
> > >  	page = get_partial_node(get_node(s, searchnode));
> > >  	if (page || (flags & __GFP_THISNODE) || node != -1)
> >
> > This has a merge conflict with 2.6.35 since it has this:
> >
> > 	page = get_partial_node(get_node(s, searchnode));
> > 	if (page || (flags & __GFP_THISNODE))
> > 		return page;
> >
> > 	return get_any_partial(s, flags);
> >
> > so what happened to the dropped check for returning get_any_partial() when
> > node != -1?  I added the check for benchmarking.
> 
> Strange no merge conflict here. Are you sure you use upstream?
> 

Yes, 2.6.35 does not have the node != -1 check and Linus hasn't pulled 
slub/fixes from Pekka's tree yet.  Even when he does, "slub numa: Fix rare 
allocation from unexpected node" removes the __GFP_THISNODE check before 
adding node != -1, so this definitely doesn't apply to anybody else's 
tree.
--
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/