[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <523776D4.4070402@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:23:32 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, rientjes@...gle.com,
zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v5 3/4] mm/vmalloc: revert "mm/vmalloc.c: check
VM_UNINITIALIZED flag in s_show instead of show_numa_info"
On 9/14/2013 7:45 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> Changelog:
> *v2 -> v3: revert commit d157a558 directly
>
> The VM_UNINITIALIZED/VM_UNLIST flag introduced by commit f5252e00(mm: avoid
> null pointer access in vm_struct via /proc/vmallocinfo) is used to avoid
> accessing the pages field with unallocated page when show_numa_info() is
> called. This patch move the check just before show_numa_info in order that
> some messages still can be dumped via /proc/vmallocinfo. This patch revert
> commit d157a558 (mm/vmalloc.c: check VM_UNINITIALIZED flag in s_show instead
> of show_numa_info);
Both d157a558 and your patch don't explain why your one is better. Yes, some
messages _can_ be dumped. But why should we do so?
And No. __get_vm_area_node() doesn't use __GFP_ZERO for allocating vm_area_struct.
dumped partial dump is not only partial, but also may be garbage.
I wonder why we need to call setup_vmalloc_vm() _after_ insert_vmap_area.
--
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