[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803272050290.14670@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Pawel Staszewski <pstaszewski@...com.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> Slab allocations can never use GFP_HIGHMEM.
Totally irrelevant.
The page allocation path does
if (gfp_flags & __GFP_ZERO)
prep_zero_page(page, order, gfp_flags);
and that will cause a warning REGARDLESS of whether the page is a HIGHMEM
page or not.
And the fact is, passing in GFP_ZERO from the SLUB code is a bug
regardless, because it unnecessarily does the dual memset().
So here's a damn big clue:
- SLUB does its own GFP_ZERO handling
- so passing GFP_ZERO down to the page allocator is a f*cking bug
- and this has NOTHING what-so-ever to do with GFP_HIGHMEM or even
whether the warning is "valid" or not - it's a bug even if the warning
had never happened.
So stop blathering, and just admit that this was buggy. It was also
fundamentally fragile to leave GFP_ZERO around when it was known to not be
valid at that point (exactly because GFP_ZERO was handled by the caller).
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