[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0000013ca82f61e2-592bc561-c5ae-4193-8007-bef820f2734d-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 02:29:03 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
cc: James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: next-20130204 - bisected slab problem to "slab: Common constants
for kmalloc boundaries"
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Here, if defined(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN), then KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE isn't
> relative-to/derived-from KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW, so the two may become
> inconsistent.
Right. And kmalloc_index() will therefore return KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW which
will dereference a NULL pointer since only the later cache pointers are
populated. KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW needs to be set correctly.
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index ba2ca53..d0f72ee 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2775,7 +2775,7 @@ init_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache_node *n)
> > static inline int alloc_kmem_cache_cpus(struct kmem_cache *s)
> > {
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(PERCPU_DYNAMIC_EARLY_SIZE <
> > - SLUB_PAGE_SHIFT * sizeof(struct kmem_cache_cpu));
> > + KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH * sizeof(struct kmem_cache_cpu));
>
> Should that also be (KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH + 1)?
That is already a pretty fuzzy test. The nr of kmem_cache_cpu allocated is
lower than KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH since several index positions will not be
occupied.
--
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