Re: [BUG] SLOB's krealloc() seems bust

["Pekka Enberg" <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>]

Hi Matt,

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -515,7 +515,7 @@
>> >
>> >        sp = (struct slob_page *)virt_to_page(block);
>> >        if (slob_page(sp))
>> > -               return ((slob_t *)block - 1)->units + SLOB_UNIT;
>> > +               return (((slob_t *)block - 1)->units - 1) * SLOB_UNIT;
>>
>> Hmm. I don't understand why we do the "minus one" thing here. Aren't
>> we underestimating the size now?
>
> The first -1 takes us to the object header in front of the object
> pointer. The second -1 subtracts out the size of the header.
>
> But it's entirely possible I'm off by one, so I'll double-check. Nick?

Yeah, I was referring to the second subtraction. Looking at
slob_page_alloc(), for example, we compare the return value of
slob_units() to SLOB_UNITS(size), so I don't think we count the header
in ->units. I mean, we ought to be seeing the subtraction elsewhere in
the code as well, no?

                  Pekka

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>