[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120130180224.GH3355@google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:02:24 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@...aro.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...aro.org,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] percpu: use ZERO_SIZE_PTR / ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:58:52AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > No, NULL is never gonna be a valid return from any allocator including
> > percpu. Percpu allocator doesn't and will never do so.
>
> How do you prevent the percpu allocator from returning NULL? I thought the
> per cpu offsets can wrap around?
I thought it didn't. I rememer thinking about this and determining
that NULL can't be allocated for dynamic addresses. Maybe I'm
imagining things. Anyways, if it can return NULL for valid
allocation, it is a bug and should be fixed.
> > I'm saying we don't have this for ZERO_SIZE_PTR in any meaningful way
> > at this point. If somebody wants to implement it properly, please
> > feel free to, but simply applying ZERO_SIZE_PTR without other changes
> > doesn't make any sense.
>
> We have no clean notion of how a percpu pointer needs to be handled. Both
> ways of handling things have drawbacks.
We don't have returned addr >= PAGE_SIZE guarantee yet but I'm fairly
sure that's the only acceptable direction if we want any improvement
in this area.
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