[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150902165922.GA5959@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:59:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix small LDT allocation for Xen
* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
> >> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static void free_ldt_struct(struct ldt_s
> >> if (ldt->size * LDT_ENTRY_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE)
> >> vfree(ldt->entries);
> >> else
> >> - kfree(ldt->entries);
> >> + put_page(virt_to_page(ldt->entries));
> >
> > FWIW, I'm not convinced this is or was correct. Using free_page looks
> > a bit safer, and free_page does more than just put_page.
>
> Actually I agree. put_page() is meant to be paired with get_page();
> __get_free_pages() is just misleading (i.e. doesn't imply a get_page())
> and instead is to be paired with free_pages(). Will do a v3 then.
So put_page() is a page cache primitive and should not be used outside of it.
As it happens, it is safe to put_page() a regularly allocated page as well, but
it's a little bit slower than doing a free_page().
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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