Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?

Hi Hugh,

> It's interesting that compat_core_sys_select() shows this kmalloc(0)
> failure but core_sys_select() does not.  That's because core_sys_select()
> avoids kmalloc by using a buffer on the stack for small allocations (and
> 0 sure is small).  Shouldn't compat_core_sys_select() do just the same?
> Or is SLUB going to be so efficient that doing so is a waste of time?

Nice catch, the original optimisation from Andi is:

http://git.kernel.org/git-new/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=70674f95c0a2ea694d5c39f4e514f538a09be36f

And I think it makes sense for the compat code to do it too.

Anton
-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
  - From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
  - From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>

References:
- select(0, ..) is valid ?
  - From: Badari Pulavarty <[email protected]>
- Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
  - From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
  - From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Clear PG_error before reading a page
Next by Date: Re: Oops and Panics in 2.6.21.1, 2.6.20.6 and 2.6.19.2
Previous by thread: Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
Next by thread: Re: select(0, ..) is valid ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]