On Sun 18-12-16 14:47:50, Wei Yang wrote:
> memblock_reserve() may fail in case there is not enough regions.
Have you seen this happenning in the real setups or this is a by-review
driven change?
[...]
> again:
> alloc = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, min_addr, max_addr,
> nid, flags);
> - if (alloc)
> + if (alloc && !memblock_reserve(alloc, size))
> goto done;
>
> if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> alloc = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, min_addr,
> max_addr, NUMA_NO_NODE,
> flags);
> - if (alloc)
> + if (alloc && !memblock_reserve(alloc, size))
> goto done;
> }
This doesn't look right. You can end up leaking the first allocated
range.
>
> @@ -1303,7 +1302,6 @@ static void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_internal(
>
> return NULL;
> done:
> - memblock_reserve(alloc, size);
> ptr = phys_to_virt(alloc);
> memset(ptr, 0, size);
>
> --
> 2.5.0
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]";> [email protected] </a>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
