[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131017052730.GA26617@lge.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:27:31 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/15] slab: correct pfmemalloc check
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:27:54PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > --- a/mm/slab.c
> > +++ b/mm/slab.c
> > @@ -930,7 +930,8 @@ static void *__ac_put_obj(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct array_cache *ac,
> > {
> > if (unlikely(pfmemalloc_active)) {
> > /* Some pfmemalloc slabs exist, check if this is one */
> > - struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(objp);
> > + struct slab *slabp = virt_to_slab(objp);
> > + struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(slabp->s_mem);
> > if (PageSlabPfmemalloc(page))
>
> I hope the compiler optimizes this code correctly because virt_to_slab
> already does one virt_to_head_page()?
It should not.
objp could be in a different page with slabp->s_mem's,
so virt_to_head_page() should be called twice.
Anyway, after implementing struct slab overloading, one call site is
removed by [14/15] in this patchset, so there is no issue.
Thanks.
>
> Otherwise this looks fine.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
--
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