Re: a little improvement for vmalloc

[Anton Altaparmakov]

On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 19:38 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Zhonglin Zhang <zhonglinzh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In FUNCTION __vmalloc ,
> > 
> >  There is a statement;
> > 
> >  if (!size || (size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > num_physpages)
> >          return NULL;
> 
> Probably the second part of the test should be removed.  If the requested
> area size is
> 
> a) less than the size of the vmalloc arena and
> 
> b) more than the number of allocatable pages
> 
> then yes, the machine will have a ton of trouble allocating the memory and
> will actually lock up.
> 
> But the only way that will happen is if some code is made to do a large
> number of smaller vmallocs.  Nobody does a huge single vmalloc like that.

I thought that second test was to avoid stupid bugs that may exist in
some random (perhaps ex-tree) modules that would otherwise cause the
machine to lockup...

Best regards,

        Anton
-- 
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/