From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48DD073D.9080109@linux-foundation.org> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:01:01 -0500 From: Christoph Lameter MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: A question about alloc_pages() References: <15178.1222381876@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <15178.1222381876@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Howells Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: David Howells wrote: > When alloc_pages() is asked to allocate a block of pages (order > 0), should I > be able to expect that page_count(pages[0]) will be 1, and page_count() for > all the other pages will be 0? Correct. > However, I have a report that sometimes this isn't true, and I'm wondering if > the allocator can't be relied on in this way, or whether there's a bug > somewhere keeping a reference to a released page. Must be a bug. -- 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