Andrew Morton wrote:
> Mel Gorman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Andy added code to buddy allocator which does not require the zone's
>>endpoints to be aligned to MAX_ORDER. An issue is that the buddy
>>allocator requires the node_mem_map's endpoints to be MAX_ORDER aligned.
>>Otherwise __page_find_buddy could compute a buddy not in node_mem_map for
>>partial MAX_ORDER regions at zone's endpoints. page_is_buddy will detect
>>that these pages at endpoints are not PG_buddy (they were zeroed out by
>>bootmem allocator and not part of zone). Of course the negative here is
>>we could waste a little memory but the positive is eliminating all the
>>old checks for zone boundary conditions.
>>
>>SPARSEMEM won't encounter this issue because of MAX_ORDER size constraint
>>when SPARSEMEM is configured. ia64 VIRTUAL_MEM_MAP doesn't need the
>>logic either because the holes and endpoints are handled differently.
>>This leaves checking alloc_remap and other arches which privately allocate
>>for node_mem_map.
>
>
> Do we think we need this in 2.6.17?
I would say yes, it is a very low risk patch in my view and provides a
very large part of the protections we require. i386 as our largest
userbase should be safe from zone/node alignment issues with just this
change. Others need slightly more (the page_zone_idx check) which is
being discussed in another thread.
-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
