[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080509113434.GG9840@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:34:34 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparsemem vmemmap: initialize memmap.
> > Index: linux-2.6/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
> > @@ -154,6 +154,6 @@ struct page * __meminit sparse_mem_map_p
> > int error = vmemmap_populate(map, PAGES_PER_SECTION, nid);
> > if (error)
> > return NULL;
> > -
> > + memset(map, 0, PAGES_PER_SECTION * sizeof(struct page));
> > return map;
> > }
>
> The normal expectation is that all allocations are made using
> vmemmap_alloc_block() which allocates from the appropriate place. Once
> the buddy is up and available it uses:
>
> struct page *page = alloc_pages_node(node,
> GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, get_order(size));
>
> to get the memory so it should all be zero'd. So I would expect all
> existing users to be covered by that? Can you not simply use __GFP_ZERO
> for your allocations or use vmemmap_alloc_block() ?
Ah, I didn't notice the __GFP_ZERO. So it's just an s390 bug. Will
move the memset to our code instead.
Thanks!
--
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