[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AC0E6A3.4040500@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:38:59 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Tony Vroon <tony@...x.net>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: fix unit_map[] verification in pcpu_setup_first_chunk()
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>
>>> pcpu_setup_first_chunk() incorrectly used NR_CPUS as the impossible
>>> unit number while unit number can equal and go over NR_CPUS with
>>> sparse unit map. This triggers BUG_ON() spuriously on machines which
>>> have non-power-of-two number of cpus. Use UINT_MAX instead.
>> Uhhh. Funky. The assumption nr_cpu_ids < NR_CPUS has been broken. Wonder
>> what other effects that will have. In particular since the slab and page
>> allocators have arrays indexed by the cpu number and those arrays are
>> dimensioned for NR_CPUS.
>
> Heh.. that's not what's broken. unit# can legally go over NR_CPUS or
> nr_cpu_ids as cpus can be sparsely mapped to units. The problem is
> that
^
I'm delusional at the moment. :-)
Christoph, can you please elaborate why nr_cpu_ids < NR_CPUS is
broken?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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