| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:19:19 +0900 From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] percpu: fix a mismatch between code and comment When pcpu_build_alloc_info() searches best_upa value, it ignores current value if the number of waste units exceeds 1/3 of the number of total cpus. But the comment on the code says that it will ignore if wastage is over 25%. Modify the comment. Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com> --- I used -U5 rather than 3 for you to see the mismatch at a glance. :-) mm/percpu.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c index 9581f84..5e78131 100644 --- a/mm/percpu.c +++ b/mm/percpu.c @@ -1174,11 +1174,11 @@ struct pcpu_alloc_info * __init pcpu_build_alloc_info( allocs += this_allocs; wasted += this_allocs * upa - group_cnt[group]; } /* - * Don't accept if wastage is over 25%. The + * Don't accept if wastage is over 1/3. The * greater-than comparison ensures upa==1 always * passes the following check. */ if (wasted > num_possible_cpus() / 3) continue; -- 1.7.0.4 -- 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