Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:45:08 +0100
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
cc: dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Permit inode & dentry hash tables to be allocated > MAX_ORDER size
Message-ID: <4F2B7A16061839F525FD5279@[192.168.0.7]>
In-Reply-To: <20040611163051.6e7985bb.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <20040611034809.41dc9205.akpm@osdl.org>	<567.1086950642@redhat.com>	<1056.1086952350@redhat.com>	<20040611150419.11281555.akpm@osdl.org>	<3066250000.1086995005@flay>	<20040611161920.0a40e49d.akpm@osdl.org>	<3067490000.1086995928@flay> <20040611163051.6e7985bb.akpm@osdl.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 893
Lines: 14

--On 11 June 2004 16:30 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> Doesn't look that way.  It uses
>
> 	(zone->zone_mem_map - page) >> (1 + order)

Hmmm, yes.  Does this not mean that we will violate the object size N will be aligned at size N.  Presumably that's why the error says 'it'll crash'.  If we are two pages offset we will allocate 4 page objects 2 page aligned.  I'll have a closer look and see if we can just 'round down' the zone_mem_map pointer here to give the correct alignment.  As long as we don't try and free them into the allocator originally we should be ok, as they are marked allocated in the bitmaps at the start.

-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/