From: Jens Osterkamp <Jens.Osterkamp@gmx.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] in 2.6.25-rc3 with 64k page size and SLUB_DEBUG_ON
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:44:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200803181744.58735.Jens.Osterkamp@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803121630110.10488@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 962 bytes --]
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Jens Osterkamp wrote:
>
> > I added a printk in kmalloc and the size seems to be 0x4000.
>
> Hmmmm... So kmalloc_index returns 14. This should all be fine.
>
> However, with slub_debug the size of the 16k kmalloc object is
> actually a bit larger than 0x4000. The caller must not expect the object
> to be aligned to a 16kb boundary. Is that the case?
Actually the caller expects exactly that. The kmalloc that I saw was coming
from alloc_thread_info in dup_task_struct. For 4k pages this maps to
__get_free_pages whereas for 64k pages it maps to kmalloc.
The result of __get_free_pages seem to be aligned and kmalloc (with slub_debug)
of course not. That explains the 4k/64k difference and the crash I am seeing...
but I can't think of a reasonable fix right now as I don't understand the
reason for the difference in the allocation code (yet).
Gruß,
Jens
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-18 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-06 13:47 Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-06 19:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-06 21:07 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-06 21:50 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-06 21:52 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-06 21:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-06 22:00 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-03-06 22:04 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-03-06 22:07 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-06 22:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-06 22:24 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-03-07 12:20 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-07 12:40 ` Pekka J Enberg
2008-03-07 12:44 ` Pekka J Enberg
2008-03-07 22:18 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-07 22:30 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-07 22:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-12 15:19 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-12 23:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-18 16:44 ` Jens Osterkamp [this message]
2008-03-18 17:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-18 17:51 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-03-06 22:25 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-07 22:09 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-06 22:21 ` Jens Osterkamp
2008-03-06 21:27 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-03-06 21:45 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200803181744.58735.Jens.Osterkamp@gmx.de \
--to=jens.osterkamp@gmx.de \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox