[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081002143004.5fec3952.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:30:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kniht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mel@....ul.ie, apw@...dowen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] handle initialising compound pages at orders
greater than MAX_ORDER
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:19:56 +0100
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote:
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -268,13 +268,14 @@ void prep_compound_page(struct page *page, unsigned long order)
> {
> int i;
> int nr_pages = 1 << order;
> + struct page *p = page + 1;
>
> set_compound_page_dtor(page, free_compound_page);
> set_compound_order(page, order);
> __SetPageHead(page);
> - for (i = 1; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> - struct page *p = page + i;
> -
> + for (i = 1; i < nr_pages; i++, p++) {
> + if (unlikely((i & (MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES - 1)) == 0))
> + p = pfn_to_page(page_to_pfn(page) + i);
> __SetPageTail(p);
> p->first_page = page;
> }
gad. Wouldn't it be clearer to do
for (i = 1; i < nr_pages; i++) {
struct page *p = pfn_to_page(i);
__SetPageTail(p);
p->first_page = page;
}
Oh well, I guess we can go with the obfuscated, uncommented version for
now :(
This patch applies to 2.6.26 (and possibly earlier) but I don't think
those kernels can trigger the bug?
--
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