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/