[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH mmotm] mm: alloc_large_system_hash check order
Hugh Dickins a écrit :
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:09:48PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>> On an x86_64 with 4GB ram, tcp_init()'s call to alloc_large_system_hash(),
>>> to allocate tcp_hashinfo.ehash, is now triggering an mmotm WARN_ON_ONCE on
>>> order >= MAX_ORDER - it's hoping for order 11. alloc_large_system_hash()
>>> had better make its own check on the order.

Well, I dont know why, since alloc_large_system_hash() already take
care of retries, halving size between each tries.

>>> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <>
>> Looks good
>> Reviewed-by: Mel Gorman <>
> Thanks.
>> As I was looking there, it seemed that alloc_large_system_hash() should be
>> using alloc_pages_exact() instead of having its own "give back the spare
>> pages at the end of the buffer" logic. If alloc_pages_exact() was used, then
>> the check for an order >= MAX_ORDER can be pushed down to alloc_pages_exact()
>> where it may catch other unwary callers.
>> How about adding the following patch on top of yours?
> Well observed, yes indeed. In fact, it even looks as if, shock horror,
> alloc_pages_exact() was _plagiarized_ from alloc_large_system_hash().
> Blessed be the GPL, I'm sure we can skip the lengthy lawsuits!

As a matter of fact, I was planning to call my lawyer, so I'll reconsider
this and save some euros, thanks !


It makes sense to use a helper function if it already exist, of course !

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-01 13:55    [W:0.085 / U:6.816 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site