On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 09:54:06 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > But I'll apply it anyway, because it looks "obviously correct" from the
> > standpoint that the _other___slob user already clears the end result
> > explicitly later on, and we simply should never pass down __GFP_ZERO to
> > the actual page allocator.
>
> Actually, I take that back. The other slob users are different. They share
> pages, this codepath does not.
>
> So I think a more proper solution would be:
> (a) Something like this patch (which includes my previous mm/slub.c
> change)
> (b) don't warn about atomic GFP_ZERO's - unless they have GFP_HIGHMEM set
> *too*.
>
> So which warning is it that triggers the bogus error?
It's a kmap_atomic() debugging patch which I wrote ages ago and whcih Ingo
sucked into his tree. I don't _think_ this warning is present in your tree
at all.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/29/157 is where it starts.
I had a lenghty back-and-forth with Christoph on this within the past
couple of months and I cannot locate the thread and I don't recall what the
upshot was and Christoph is still offline.
Knocking out __GFP_ZERO at the point where the slab allocator(s) call the
page allocator seems like a good approach to me.
But I don't think we need to do anything for 2.6.24..
--
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]