From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 07:57:07 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [QUICKLIST 1/5] Quicklists for page table pages V4 Message-ID: <20070323145707.GT2986@holomorphy.com> References: <20070323062843.19502.19827.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <20070322223927.bb4caf43.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070322234848.100abb3d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070323112920.GR2986@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070323112920.GR2986@holomorphy.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:48:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >> afacit that two-year-old, totally-different patch has nothing to do with my >> repeatedly-asked question. It appears to be consolidating three separate >> quicklist allocators into one common implementation. >> In an attempt to answer my own question (and hence to justify the retention >> of this custom allocator) I did this: > [... patch changing allocator alloc()/free() to bare page allocations ...] >> but it crashes early in the page allocator (i386) and I don't see why. It >> makes me wonder if we have a use-after-free which is hidden by the presence >> of the quicklist buffering or something. On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 04:29:20AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Sorry I flubbed the first message. Anyway this does mean something is > seriously wrong and needs to be debugged. Looking into it now. I know what's happening. I just need to catch the culprit. -- 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: email@kvack.org