All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@zoho.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	zijun_hu@htc.com, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	cl@linux.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm/percpu.c: fix memory leakage issue when allocate a odd alignment area
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:20:12 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57FDE42C.8040808@zoho.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161012065332.GA9504@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 10/12/2016 02:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 12-10-16 08:28:17, zijun_hu wrote:
>> On 2016/10/12 1:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 11-10-16 21:24:50, zijun_hu wrote:
>>>> From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@htc.com>
>>>>
>>>> the LSB of a chunk->map element is used for free/in-use flag of a area
>>>> and the other bits for offset, the sufficient and necessary condition of
>>>> this usage is that both size and alignment of a area must be even numbers
>>>> however, pcpu_alloc() doesn't force its @align parameter a even number
>>>> explicitly, so a odd @align maybe causes a series of errors, see below
>>>> example for concrete descriptions.
>>>
>>> Is or was there any user who would use a different than even (or power of 2)
>>> alighment? If not is this really worth handling?
>>>
>>
>> it seems only a power of 2 alignment except 1 can make sure it work very well,
>> that is a strict limit, maybe this more strict limit should be checked
> 
> I fail to see how any other alignment would actually make any sense
> what so ever. Look, I am not a maintainer of this code but adding a new
> code to catch something that doesn't make any sense sounds dubious at
> best to me.
> 
> I could understand this patch if you see a problem and want to prevent
> it from repeating bug doing these kind of changes just in case sounds
> like a bad idea.
> 
thanks for your reply

should we have a generic discussion whether such patches which considers
many boundary or rare conditions are necessary.

should we make below declarations as conventions
1) when we say 'alignment', it means align to a power of 2 value
   for example, aligning value @v to @b implicit @v is power of 2
   , align 10 to 4 is 12
2) when we say 'round value @v up/down to boundary @b', it means the 
   result is a times of @b,  it don't requires @b is a power of 2


--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@zoho.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	zijun_hu@htc.com, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	cl@linux.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm/percpu.c: fix memory leakage issue when allocate a odd alignment area
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:20:12 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57FDE42C.8040808@zoho.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161012065332.GA9504@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On 10/12/2016 02:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 12-10-16 08:28:17, zijun_hu wrote:
>> On 2016/10/12 1:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 11-10-16 21:24:50, zijun_hu wrote:
>>>> From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@htc.com>
>>>>
>>>> the LSB of a chunk->map element is used for free/in-use flag of a area
>>>> and the other bits for offset, the sufficient and necessary condition of
>>>> this usage is that both size and alignment of a area must be even numbers
>>>> however, pcpu_alloc() doesn't force its @align parameter a even number
>>>> explicitly, so a odd @align maybe causes a series of errors, see below
>>>> example for concrete descriptions.
>>>
>>> Is or was there any user who would use a different than even (or power of 2)
>>> alighment? If not is this really worth handling?
>>>
>>
>> it seems only a power of 2 alignment except 1 can make sure it work very well,
>> that is a strict limit, maybe this more strict limit should be checked
> 
> I fail to see how any other alignment would actually make any sense
> what so ever. Look, I am not a maintainer of this code but adding a new
> code to catch something that doesn't make any sense sounds dubious at
> best to me.
> 
> I could understand this patch if you see a problem and want to prevent
> it from repeating bug doing these kind of changes just in case sounds
> like a bad idea.
> 
thanks for your reply

should we have a generic discussion whether such patches which considers
many boundary or rare conditions are necessary.

should we make below declarations as conventions
1) when we say 'alignment', it means align to a power of 2 value
   for example, aligning value @v to @b implicit @v is power of 2
   , align 10 to 4 is 12
2) when we say 'round value @v up/down to boundary @b', it means the 
   result is a times of @b,  it don't requires @b is a power of 2

  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-12  7:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-11 13:24 [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm/percpu.c: fix memory leakage issue when allocate a odd alignment area zijun_hu
2016-10-11 13:24 ` zijun_hu
2016-10-11 17:22 ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-11 17:22   ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-12  0:28   ` zijun_hu
2016-10-12  0:28     ` zijun_hu
2016-10-12  6:53     ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-12  6:53       ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-12  7:20       ` zijun_hu [this message]
2016-10-12  7:20         ` zijun_hu
2016-10-12  7:24       ` zijun_hu
2016-10-12  7:24         ` zijun_hu
2016-10-12  8:25         ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-12  8:25           ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-12  8:44           ` zijun_hu
2016-10-12  8:44             ` zijun_hu
2016-10-12  9:54             ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-12  9:54               ` Michal Hocko
2016-10-12  9:59               ` zijun_hu
2016-10-12  9:59                 ` zijun_hu
2016-10-13 23:31 ` Tejun Heo
2016-10-13 23:31   ` Tejun Heo
2016-10-14  0:23   ` zijun_hu
2016-10-14  0:23     ` zijun_hu
2016-10-14  0:28     ` Tejun Heo
2016-10-14  0:28       ` Tejun Heo
2016-10-14  0:58       ` zijun_hu
2016-10-14  0:58         ` zijun_hu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=57FDE42C.8040808@zoho.com \
    --to=zijun_hu@zoho.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=zijun_hu@htc.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.