* Anomaly in Buddy bitmaps?
@ 2004-01-20 19:57 Alok Mooley
2004-01-20 20:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alok Mooley @ 2004-01-20 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mm
I wrote a module in kernel 2.6.0 for scanning a higher
order block from zone_mem_map for ZONE_NORMAL &
checking the buddy bitmaps for the same.
In the case of order 4, while scanning on the
order 4 block boundaries, I found an order 4 block
with page state 0000000001111111,where 0s represent
free pages & 1s represent order 0 allocations. The bit
in the order 3 bitmap corresponding to this 4th order
block was found to be a 0,whereas this bit should have
been a 1 as one 3rd order buddy is completely free.
I got the same result (a 0, where a 1 should have been
found) in another case too.
Is this an anomaly in the buddy bitmaps? Can the buddy
bitmaps ever be inconsistent?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: Anomaly in Buddy bitmaps?
2004-01-20 19:57 Anomaly in Buddy bitmaps? Alok Mooley
@ 2004-01-20 20:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2004-01-20 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alok Mooley; +Cc: linux-mm
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:57:29AM -0800, Alok Mooley wrote:
> I wrote a module in kernel 2.6.0 for scanning a higher
> order block from zone_mem_map for ZONE_NORMAL &
> checking the buddy bitmaps for the same.
> In the case of order 4, while scanning on the
> order 4 block boundaries, I found an order 4 block
> with page state 0000000001111111,where 0s represent
> free pages & 1s represent order 0 allocations. The bit
> in the order 3 bitmap corresponding to this 4th order
> block was found to be a 0,whereas this bit should have
> been a 1 as one 3rd order buddy is completely free.
> I got the same result (a 0, where a 1 should have been
> found) in another case too.
> Is this an anomaly in the buddy bitmaps? Can the buddy
> bitmaps ever be inconsistent?
This could be the result of one of the free buddies being on the
per-cpu freelists. Count those as "semi-free"; they count as allocated
as far as the buddy bitmap is concerned.
-- wli
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-01-20 20:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-01-20 19:57 Anomaly in Buddy bitmaps? Alok Mooley
2004-01-20 20:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.