lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] percpu: use ZERO_SIZE_PTR / ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR
Date
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:16:39 -0800, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:12:18PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > I thought it didn't. I rememer thinking about this and determining
> > > that NULL can't be allocated for dynamic addresses. Maybe I'm
> > > imagining things. Anyways, if it can return NULL for valid
> > > allocation, it is a bug and should be fixed.
> >
> > I dont see anything that would hinder an arbitrary value to be returned.
> > NULL is also used for the failure case. Definitely a bug.
>
> Given the address translation we do and kernel image layout, I don't
> think this can happen on x86. It may theoretically possible on other
> archs tho. Anyways, yeah, this one needs improving.

I tried setting the lower bit on all percpu ptrs, but since non-dynamic
percpu vars could have odd alignments, that fails in general.

> > > We don't have returned addr >= PAGE_SIZE guarantee yet but I'm fairly
> > > sure that's the only acceptable direction if we want any improvement
> > > in this area.
> >
> > The ZERO_SIZE_PTR patch would not make the situation that much worse.
>
> I'm not objecting to marking zero-sized allocations per-se. I'm
> saying the patch is pointless at this point. It doesn't contribute
> anything while giving the illusion of better error checking than we
> actually do. Let's do it when it can actually work.

Disagree: This patch works. It allows zero-size per-cpu allocs, like
the other allocators. Nor does it fail in practice.

We should do better, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Cheers,
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-31 11:01    [W:0.113 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site