[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0000013949d61abd-83aaf442-a4a1-4558-9045-ed91d77aae00-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:38:52 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mempolicy: fix refcount leak in
mpol_set_shared_policy()
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:46:09PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -2318,9 +2323,7 @@ void mpol_free_shared_policy(struct shared_policy *p)
> > > while (next) {
> > > n = rb_entry(next, struct sp_node, nd);
> > > next = rb_next(&n->nd);
> > > - rb_erase(&n->nd, &p->root);
> >
> > Looks like we need to keep the above line? sp_delete does not remove the
> > tree entry.
> >
> > > - mpol_put(n->policy);
> > > - kmem_cache_free(sn_cache, n);
> > > + sp_delete(p, n);
>
> Yes it does, could you have accidentally mixed up sp_free (which does not
> remove the tree entry) and sp_delete (which does)? The altered code ends
> up looking like this;
Yup I got that mixed up.
Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
--
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