[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706011653290.3957@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...ibm.com>, pj@....com,
simon.derr@...l.net, clameter@...ulhu.engr.sgi.com,
rientjes@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cpuset operations causes Badness at mm/slab.c:777
warning
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> A too large alloc is >32MB or MAX_ORDER << PAGE_SIZE. A BUG_ON in
> kmalloc_slab() will trigger.
Did we use to BUG_ON()? I think that's wrong. There are ways for users to
potentially ask the kernel to do big allocations, and the correct response
is to say "no can do", not to crash!
> Here is the updated patch. It works fine here:
>
> SLUB: Return BADPTR instead of warning for kmalloc(0)
Looks fine to me. My only comment is that
> - if (!x)
> + if (!x || x == BADPTR)
> return;
This could be micro-optimized (again, non-standard, but it should be
"practically portable") to have just a single test using something like
if ((unsigned long)x <= 16)
return;
but I guess it doesn't really matter much.
I think this is better than what we have now, but I also suspect it's
*not* something we should try this late in the -rc sequence ;)
Andrew, want to take this patch to -mm to see if it triggers anything?
Linus
-
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