lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next] slub: set PG_slab on all of slab pages
Hi Christoph,

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 08:48:33AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> > I read this thread and I feel the we don't reach right point.
> > I think it's not a compound page problem.
> > We can face above problem where we allocates big order page without __GFP_COMP
> > and free middle page of it.
>
> Yes we can do that and doing such a thing seems to be more legitimate
> since one could argue that the user did not request an atomic allocation
> unit from the page allocator and therefore the freeing of individual
> pages in that group is permissible. If memory serves me right we do that
> sometimes.

To be leitimate, user have to handle subpages's ref counter well.
But I think it's not desirable. If user want it, he should use
split_page instead of modifying ref counter directly.

>
> However if compound pages are requested then such an atomic allocation
> unit *was* requested and the page allocator should not allow to free
> individual pages.

Yes. In fact, I am not sure this problem is related to compound page.
If it is compound page, tail page's ref count should be zero.
When user calls __free_pages in tail page by mistake, it should not pass
into __free_pages_ok but reference count would be underflow.
Later, when head page is freed, we could catch it in free_pages_check.

So I had a question to Namhyung that he can see bad page message by PG_slab when he uses SLUB
with his patch. If the problem still happens, something seems to modify tail page's ref count
directly without get_page. It's apparently BUG.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-06 02:19    [W:0.081 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site