From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752458Ab1HHVYY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2011 17:24:24 -0400
Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:59231 "EHLO
	mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751520Ab1HHVYX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 8 Aug 2011 17:24:23 -0400
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 23:24:18 +0200
From: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com>
To: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: fix check_bytes() for slub debugging
Message-ID: <20110808212418.GA3297@joi.lan>
References: <1312709438-7608-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1312709438-7608-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 06:30:38PM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> The check_bytes() function is used by slub debugging.  It returns a pointer
> to the first unmatching byte for a character in the given memory area.
> 
> If the character for matching byte is greater than 0x80, check_bytes()
> doesn't work.  Becuase 64-bit pattern is generated as below.
> 
> 	value64 = value | value << 8 | value << 16 | value << 24;
> 	value64 = value64 | value64 << 32;
> 
> The integer promotions are performed and sign-extended as the type of value
> is u8.  The upper 32 bits of value64 is 0xffffffff in the first line, and
> the second line has no effect.
> 
> This fixes the 64-bit pattern generation.

Thank you. I'm a bit ashamed about this bug... I introduced this bug, so:
Reviewed-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com>

I tested your patch to check if performance improvements of commit
c4089f98e943ff445665dea49c190657b34ccffe come from this bug or not.
And forunately they aren't - performance is exactly the same.

How did you find it?

Marcin