[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0ebe11c-4ca2-d2f3-8e53-0d9f44bfdda0@ssi.bg>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 07:06:16 +0200 (EET)
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
cc: "'netdev@...r.kernel.org'" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"'Naresh Kamboju'" <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
"'Dan Carpenter'" <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
"'pablo@...filter.org'" <pablo@...filter.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"'open list'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org'" <lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org>,
"'Linux Regressions'" <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
"'Linux ARM'" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"'netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org'" <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Fix clamp() of ip_vs_conn_tab on small memory
systems.
Hello,
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024, David Laight wrote:
>
> > The 'max_avail' value is calculated from the system memory
> > size using order_base_2().
> > order_base_2(x) is defined as '(x) ? fn(x) : 0'.
> > The compiler generates two copies of the code that follows
> > and then expands clamp(max, min, PAGE_SHIFT - 12) (11 on 32bit).
> > This triggers a compile-time assert since min is 5.
>
> 8 ?
>
> >
> > In reality a system would have to have less than 512MB memory
Also, note that this is 512KB (practically impossible),
not 512MB. So, it can fail only on build.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists