slab: initialize unused alien cache entry as NULL at alloc_alien_cache().
PATCH v3 1/1 slab: initialize unused alien cache entry as NULL at alloc_alien_cache().
Comparing with existing code, it's a simpler way to use kzalloc_node() to ensure that each unused alien cache entry is NULL.
--- mm/slab.c | 6 ++---- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
mm/slab.c +2 -4
@@ -971,13 +971,11 @@ static struct array_cache **alloc_alien_cache(int node, int limit, gfp_t gfp)if (limit >1 ) limit =12 ; - ac_ptr =kmalloc_node (memsize, gfp, node); + ac_ptr =kzalloc_node (memsize, gfp, node);if (ac_ptr) {for_each_node (i) { -if (i == node || !node_online (i)) { - ac_ptr[i] =NULL ; +if (i == node || !node_online (i))continue ; - } ac_ptr[i] =alloc_arraycache (node, limit,0xbaadf00d , gfp);if (!ac_ptr[i]) {for (i--; i >=0 ; i--)
Signature · 8 lines
1.5.3.8 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Quoted 9 lines · Haicheng Li
Comparing with existing code, it's a simpler way to use
kzalloc_node()to ensure that each unused alien cache entry is NULL.CC Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>CC Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>Acked-by Andi Kleen <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Matt Mackall <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Haicheng Li <[email protected]>
I can find a trace of Andi acking the previous version of this patch but I don't see an ACK from Christoph nor a revieved-by from Matt. Was I not CC'd on those emails or what's going on here?
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Quoted 4 lines · Pekka Enberg
I can find a trace of Andi acking the previous version of this patch but I don't see an ACK from Christoph nor a revieved-by from Matt. Was I not CC'd on those emails or what's going on here?
Pekka,
Christoph said he will ack this patch if remove the change of MAX_NUMNODES (see below), so I add him directly as Acked-by in this revised patch. And also, I got review comments from Matt for v1 and changed the patch accordingly.
Is it a violation of the rule? if so, I'm sorry, actually not quite clear with the rule.
Quoted 13 lines · Christoph Lameter
Review static void *alternate_node_alloc(struct kmem_cache *, · line 971
Quoted 8 lines · Haicheng Li
(quoted diff) +1
-1@@ -966,18 +966,16 @@ static void *alternate_node_alloc(struct kmem_cache *, gfp_t); static struct array_cache **alloc_alien_cache(int node, int limit, gfp_t gfp) { struct array_cache **ac_ptr; - int memsize = sizeof(void *) * nr_node_ids; + int memsize = sizeof(void *) * MAX_NUMNODES; int i;Remove this change and I will ack the patch.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Hi,
Quoted 11 lines · Haicheng Li
Quoted 4 lines · Pekka Enberg
I can find a trace of Andi acking the previous version of this patch but I don't see an ACK from Christoph nor a revieved-by from Matt. Was I not CC'd on those emails or what's going on here?
Christoph said he will ack this patch if remove the change of
MAX_NUMNODES(see below), so I add him directly as Acked-by in this revised patch. And also, I got review comments from Matt for v1 and changed the patch accordingly.Is it a violation of the rule? if so, I'm sorry, actually not quite clear with the rule.
See Section 14 of Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You should never add tags unless they came from the said person. The ACKs from Andi is fine, the one from Christoph is borderline but OK and the one from Matt is _not_ OK.
I can fix those up but I'll wait from an explicit ACK from Christoph first.
Pekka
understood. thanks!
Quoted 13 lines · Pekka Enberg
Hi,
Quoted 10 lines · Haicheng Li
Quoted 4 lines · Pekka Enberg
I can find a trace of Andi acking the previous version of this patch but I don't see an ACK from Christoph nor a revieved-by from Matt. Was I not CC'd on those emails or what's going on here?
Christoph said he will ack this patch if remove the change of
MAX_NUMNODES(see below), so I add him directly as Acked-by in this revised patch. And also, I got review comments from Matt for v1 and changed the patch accordingly.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Is it a violation of the rule? if so, I'm sorry, actually not quite clear with the rule.
See Section 14 of
Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You should never add tags unless they came from the said person. The ACKs from Andi is fine, the one from Christoph is borderline but OK and the one from Matt is _not_ OK.I can fix those up but I'll wait from an explicit ACK from Christoph first.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Haicheng Li kirjoitti:
Quoted 29 lines
Comparing with existing code, it's a simpler way to use
kzalloc_node()to ensure that each unused alien cache entry is NULL.CC Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>CC Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>--- mm/slab.c | 6 ++---- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)mm/slab.c +2
-4@@ -971,13 +971,11 @@ static struct array_cache **alloc_alien_cache(int node, int limit, gfp_t gfp)if (limit >1 ) limit =12 ; - ac_ptr =kmalloc_node (memsize, gfp, node); + ac_ptr =kzalloc_node (memsize, gfp, node);if (ac_ptr) {for_each_node (i) { -if (i == node || !node_online (i)) { - ac_ptr[i] =NULL ; +if (i == node || !node_online (i))continue ; - } ac_ptr[i] =alloc_arraycache (node, limit,0xbaadf00d , gfp);if (!ac_ptr[i]) {
Quoted 1 line
for (i--; i >= 0; i--)
Christoph? Matt?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Christoph Lameter
Acked-byExplicit Ack..
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>
Matt Mackall
Acked-byQuoted 17 lines · Pekka Enberg
Haicheng Li kirjoitti:
Quoted 16 lines
Comparing with existing code, it's a simpler way to use
kzalloc_node()to ensure that each unused alien cache entry is NULL.CC Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>CC Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>--- mm/slab.c | 6 ++---- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)mm/slab.c +0
-0@@ -971,13 +971,11 @@ static struct array_cache **alloc_alien_cache(int node, int limit, gfp_t gfp)
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 13 lines
mm/slab.c +2
-4if (limit >1 ) limit =12 ; - ac_ptr =kmalloc_node (memsize, gfp, node); + ac_ptr =kzalloc_node (memsize, gfp, node);if (ac_ptr) {for_each_node (i) { -if (i == node || !node_online (i)) { - ac_ptr[i] =NULL ; +if (i == node || !node_online (i))continue ; - } ac_ptr[i] =alloc_arraycache (node, limit,0xbaadf00d , gfp);if (!ac_ptr[i]) {Quoted 1 line
for (i--; i >= 0; i--)Christoph? Matt?
Looks like a fine cleanup.
Signature · 8 lines
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>