[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:0.022 / U:15.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site