From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D27FC433DF for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 16:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DF72076C for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 16:35:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="EYO8WHm1" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C2DF72076C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0C6766B0003; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 12:35:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 050836B0005; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 12:35:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E5A896B0006; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 12:35:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0250.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.250]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3C76B0003 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 12:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4505D181AC9CC for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 16:35:49 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76979172018.19.camp92_1b0acdd26e68 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5901ACEAD for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 16:35:49 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: camp92_1b0acdd26e68 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2136 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf34.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 16:35:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=n/hcDObI/DMWlNE/auMQa77Bg8QRthUTwPM6folDItA=; b=EYO8WHm10pKP+mpQ6yVKANpNKy zMf4FCJwPYrymkE9yOnb63hh6mWx39tz+nio44PiBgN0GHH0UOXdYkZQrmdF80ke46kk+tg6ntrRn 4z1gx7wnZxD3EYTJCgK5H7m5NoHWgG0Ck4sWy86zjs4+Qy7ZRLKWD3IUHue+g0gqhWICwjjQDkWNi nZoyNnd9ph12YmB62guoveGIh+tSzN9uUc9lJy0FPXZkdAQdOg44TAMhh1OgdRjFKyGoaHYINseKz GrbTfspTTtOHCKohxmWfFCMYaLVYZA6P+EInlFilp2vbtO/JBj82JQ7QDZl8Qo/O+6Ix5pfrBAXhG iUjzvSpA==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jpaHL-0006Z6-2k; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 16:35:39 +0000 Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 17:35:39 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Markus Elfring Cc: Long Li , linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Free unused pages in kmalloc_order() Message-ID: <20200628163539.GA25523@casper.infradead.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1E5901ACEAD X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 01:17:59PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote: > > kmalloc(1024, GFP_HIGHUSER) can allocate memory normally, > > kmalloc(64*1024, GFP_HIGHUSER) will cause a memory leak, > > Would you like to explain the influence of the selected allocation size > in a different way? Markus, this is not useful. Please stop.