From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760182AbXEPAAN (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2007 20:00:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758299AbXEOX74 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2007 19:59:56 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:37665 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756703AbXEOX7z (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2007 19:59:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:56:36 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Christoph Lameter Cc: mroos@linux.ee, David Miller , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: slab hang on boot Message-Id: <20070515165636.5057456e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20070514.151148.45744375.davem@davemloft.net> <20070515163321.744e2388.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 May 2007 16:46:17 -0700 (PDT) > > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > > @@ -86,6 +87,9 @@ static inline int kmalloc_index(int size > > > */ > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(size == 0); > > > > > > + if (size >= (1UL << KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH)) > > > + return -1; > > > + > > > > I don't quite understand why we did this. The subsequent logic in > > kmalloc_index() should return -1 for this `size' anyway. If it doesn't, > > it's bust, isn't it? > > KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH is not a constant but may be less than 25. It darn well better be a compile-time constant. And look: static inline int kmalloc_index(int size) { /* * We should return 0 if size == 0 but we use the smallest object * here for SLAB legacy reasons. */ WARN_ON_ONCE(size == 0); if (size > (1 << KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH)) return -1; if (size > 64 && size <= 96) return 1; if (size > 128 && size <= 192) return 2; if (size <= 8) return 3; if (size <= 16) return 4; if (size <= 32) return 5; if (size <= 64) return 6; if (size <= 128) return 7; if (size <= 256) return 8; if (size <= 512) return 9; if (size <= 1024) return 10; if (size <= 2 * 1024) return 11; if (size <= 4 * 1024) return 12; if (size <= 8 * 1024) return 13; if (size <= 16 * 1024) return 14; if (size <= 32 * 1024) return 15; if (size <= 64 * 1024) return 16; if (size <= 128 * 1024) return 17; if (size <= 256 * 1024) return 18; #if KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH > 18 if (size <= 512 * 1024) return 19; if (size <= 1024 * 1024) return 20; #endif #if KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH > 20 if (size <= 2 * 1024 * 1024) return 21; if (size <= 4 * 1024 * 1024) return 22; if (size <= 8 * 1024 * 1024) return 23; if (size <= 16 * 1024 * 1024) return 24; if (size <= 32 * 1024 * 1024) return 25; #endif return -1; /* * What we really wanted to do and cannot do because of compiler issues is: * int i; * for (i = KMALLOC_SHIFT_LOW; i <= KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH; i++) * if (size <= (1 << i)) * return i; */ } Either that newly-added test isn't needed, or those ifdefs aren't needed?