On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 09:54:06AM -0800, Linus Torvalds 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?
While I think the whole GFP_ZERO thing is a bit broken here, this is
an improvement on my original patch, so:
Acked-by: Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> mm/slob.c | 2 +-
> mm/slub.c | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slob.c b/mm/slob.c
> index ee2ef8a..773a7aa 100644
> --- a/mm/slob.c
> +++ b/mm/slob.c
> @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ static void *slob_alloc(size_t size, gfp_t gfp, int
> align, int node)
>
> /* Not enough space: must allocate a new page */
> if (!b) {
> - b = slob_new_page(gfp, 0, node);
> + b = slob_new_page(gfp & ~__GFP_ZERO, 0, node);
> if (!b)
> return 0;
> sp = (struct slob_page *)virt_to_page(b);
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index b9f37cb..9c1d9f3 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1468,6 +1468,9 @@ static void *__slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s,
> void **object;
> struct page *new;
>
> + /* We handle __GFP_ZERO in the caller */
> + gfpflags &= ~__GFP_ZERO;
> +
> if (!c->page)
> goto new_slab;
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
--
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/
