From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:12:02 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH] Factor in buddy allocator alignment requirements in node memory alignment Message-ID: <20050517131202.GQ26073@g5.random> References: <1116274451.1005.106.camel@localhost> <1116276439.1005.110.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1116276439.1005.110.camel@localhost> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: christoph , linux-mm , shai@scalex86.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:47:19PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > Just because it complains doesn't mean that anything is actually > wrong :) > > Do you know which pieces of code actually break if the alignment doesn't > meet what that warning says? Be sure in early 2001 the alpha wildfire wasn't booting without having natural alingment from the 2^order allocation, after several days of debugging and crashing eventually I figured it out and added the printk (it couldn't be a BUG since it was early in the boot to see it). The kernel stack on x86 w/o 4k stacks depends on the natural alignment of the 2^order buddy allocations for example. No idea how much other code would break with not naturally aligned 2^order allocations. -- 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: aart@kvack.org