* Anomaly in Buddy bitmaps?
@ 2004-01-20 19:57 Alok Mooley
2004-01-20 20:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alok Mooley @ 2004-01-20 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mm
I wrote a module in kernel 2.6.0 for scanning a higher
order block from zone_mem_map for ZONE_NORMAL &
checking the buddy bitmaps for the same.
In the case of order 4, while scanning on the
order 4 block boundaries, I found an order 4 block
with page state 0000000001111111,where 0s represent
free pages & 1s represent order 0 allocations. The bit
in the order 3 bitmap corresponding to this 4th order
block was found to be a 0,whereas this bit should have
been a 1 as one 3rd order buddy is completely free.
I got the same result (a 0, where a 1 should have been
found) in another case too.
Is this an anomaly in the buddy bitmaps? Can the buddy
bitmaps ever be inconsistent?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: Anomaly in Buddy bitmaps?
2004-01-20 19:57 Anomaly in Buddy bitmaps? Alok Mooley
@ 2004-01-20 20:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2004-01-20 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alok Mooley; +Cc: linux-mm
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:57:29AM -0800, Alok Mooley wrote:
> I wrote a module in kernel 2.6.0 for scanning a higher
> order block from zone_mem_map for ZONE_NORMAL &
> checking the buddy bitmaps for the same.
> In the case of order 4, while scanning on the
> order 4 block boundaries, I found an order 4 block
> with page state 0000000001111111,where 0s represent
> free pages & 1s represent order 0 allocations. The bit
> in the order 3 bitmap corresponding to this 4th order
> block was found to be a 0,whereas this bit should have
> been a 1 as one 3rd order buddy is completely free.
> I got the same result (a 0, where a 1 should have been
> found) in another case too.
> Is this an anomaly in the buddy bitmaps? Can the buddy
> bitmaps ever be inconsistent?
This could be the result of one of the free buddies being on the
per-cpu freelists. Count those as "semi-free"; they count as allocated
as far as the buddy bitmap is concerned.
-- wli
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-01-20 20:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-01-20 19:57 Anomaly in Buddy bitmaps? Alok Mooley
2004-01-20 20:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox