Hi zhouxianrong,
Please could you be more sepcific what case can we encounter below BUG?
(Please use plain text)
What zs_class size did you this this problem?
Could you say how that can happen?
As I wrote in other reply, zsmalloc should never allocate last parital
object when I look at source cod
Hi Minchan,
On (08/14/18 09:24), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Any thoughts?
>
> If we want a refactoring, I'm not against but description said it tiggered
> BUG_ON on zs_map_object rarely. That means it should be stable material
> and need more description to understand. Please be more specific with
> s
Hi Sergey,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 07:55:36PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/13/18 15:05), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > From: zhouxianrong
> > >
> > > The last partial object in last subpage of zspage should not be linked
> > > in allocation list. Otherwise it could trigger BUG_ON explici
On (08/13/18 15:05), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > From: zhouxianrong
> >
> > The last partial object in last subpage of zspage should not be linked
> > in allocation list. Otherwise it could trigger BUG_ON explicitly at
> > function zs_map_object. But it happened rarely.
>
> Could you be more specific
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 08:28:17PM -0400, zhouxianrong wrote:
> From: zhouxianrong
>
> The last partial object in last subpage of zspage should not be linked
> in allocation list. Otherwise it could trigger BUG_ON explicitly at
> function zs_map_object. But it happened rarely.
Could you be
On 08/09/2018 03:53 PM, zhouxianrong wrote:
> The last partial object in last subpage of zspage should not be linked
> in allocation list.
Please expand the changelog. Why it should not be? What happens if it
is? Kernel panic, data corruption or whatnot? So that people not
familiar with zsmalloc i
6 matches
Mail list logo