[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwEq09vwnxPEYr67O7nuOEN9_n-uJKX11qSbuBNGJVghg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:47:08 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: David Ahern <david.ahern@...cle.com>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 4.0.0-rc4: panic in free_block
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:36 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> And they end up using that byte-at-a-time code, since SLAB and SLUB
> do mmemove() calls of the form:
>
> memmove(X + N, X, LEN);
Actually, the common case in slab is overlapping but of the form
memmove(p, p+x, len);
which goes to memcpy. It's basically re-compacting the array at the beginning.
Which was why I was asking how sure you are that memcpy *always*
copies from low to high.
I don't even know which version of memcpy ends up being used on M7.
Some of them do things like use VIS. I can follow some regular sparc
asm, there's no way I'm even *looking* at that. Is it really ok to use
VIS registers in random contexts?
Linus
--
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