From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759291AbYDKI7k (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:59:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758096AbYDKI7c (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:59:32 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53956 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757645AbYDKI7c (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:59:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:59:28 +0200 From: Nick Piggin To: Andi Kleen Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, pj@sgi.com, kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [patch 11/17] hugetlbfs: support larger than MAX_ORDER Message-ID: <20080411085928.GC20253@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080410170232.015351000@nick.local0.net> <20080410171101.551336000@nick.local0.net> <20080411081317.GQ10019@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080411081317.GQ10019@one.firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:13:17AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock); > > - if (h->surplus_huge_pages_node[nid]) { > > + if (h->surplus_huge_pages_node[nid] && h->order <= MAX_ORDER) { > > As Andrew Hastings pointed out earlier this all needs to be h->order < MAX_ORDER > [got pretty much all the checks wrong off by one]. It won't affect anything > on x86-64 but might cause problems on archs which have exactly MAX_ORDER > sized huge pages. Ah, hmm, I might have missed a couple of emails worth of feedback when you last posted. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll read over them again.