linux-kernel - Re: Random panic in load

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140723183117.GF3935@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:31:17 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Random panic in load_balance() with 3.16-rc

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:07:40AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>  - *static* per-cpu allocations might want to use "cpumask_var_t" (to
> avoid having a full "struct cpumask_t") along with doing a
> "zalloc_cpumask_var_node(..)" for each cpu.
> 
> sched_init() follows that last pattern, except it open-codes that
> zalloc_cpumask_var_node() in an odd way that confused me.
> 
> So I take my patch back. It's wrong, because it only allocates that
> cpumask_size() if CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK is true.

What it doesn't do is keep the allocation on the right node, so killing
that stuff is helping more than just readability.
--
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/