[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080325075106.GF2170@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:51:06 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [11/14] vcompound: Fallbacks for order 1 stack allocations on IA64 and x86
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:53:19PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > The traditional reason this was discouraged (people seem to reinvent
> > variants of this patch all the time) was that there used
> > to be drivers that did __pa() (or equivalent) on stack addresses
> > and that doesn't work with vmalloc pages.
> >
> > I don't know if such drivers still exist, but such a change
> > is certainly not a no-brainer
>
> I thought that had been cleaned up because some arches already have
Someone posted a patch recently that showed that the cdrom layer
does it. Might be more. It is hard to audit a few million lines
of driver code.
> virtually mapped stacks? This could be debugged by testing with
> CONFIG_VFALLBACK_ALWAYS set. Which results in a stack that is always
> vmalloc'ed and thus the driver should fail.
It might be a subtle failure.
Maybe sparse could be taught to check for this if it happens
in a single function? (cc'ing Al who might have some thoughts
on this). Of course if it happens spread out over multiple
functions sparse wouldn't help neither.
-Andi
--
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