Re: next-20130204 - bisected slab problem to "slab: Common constants for kmalloc boundaries"

[Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:

> Here, if defined(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN), then KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE isn't
> relative-to/derived-from KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW, so the two may become
> inconsistent.

Right. And kmalloc_index() will therefore return KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW which
will dereference a NULL pointer since only the later cache pointers are
populated. KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW needs to be set correctly.

> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index ba2ca53..d0f72ee 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -2775,7 +2775,7 @@ init_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache_node *n)
> >  static inline int alloc_kmem_cache_cpus(struct kmem_cache *s)
> >  {
> >  	BUILD_BUG_ON(PERCPU_DYNAMIC_EARLY_SIZE <
> > -			SLUB_PAGE_SHIFT * sizeof(struct kmem_cache_cpu));
> > +			KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH * sizeof(struct kmem_cache_cpu));
>
> Should that also be (KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH + 1)?

That is already a pretty fuzzy test. The nr of kmem_cache_cpu allocated is
lower than KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH since several index positions will not be
occupied.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>