[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801071014450.22642@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:31:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
cc: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bunk@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.24-rc7 Build-Failure at __you_cannot_kmalloc_that_much
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > : undefined reference to `__you_cannot_kmalloc_that_much'
There is also a kernel.org bugzilla for this at
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9669
For some reason my adds to this do not show up.
In both cases we have a
k(z/m)alloc(sizeof(*pointer), ...)
that is for some reason failing. I guess what happens is that the function
in which this occurs is too complex for gcc 3.2. Thus it stops constant
folding the sizeof(*pointer) in the complex inline-if-cascade that SLAB
needs to determine the cache and does not eliminate the
__you_cannot_kmalloc_that_much branch().
SLUB in that case just puts a series of if comparisions in the code. This
means compilation does not fail but a large amount of code is generated.
We could replace the __you_cannot_kmalloc_that_much() with a BUG()
statement so we have the same effect in SLAB?
--
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