On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:27:54PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > --- a/mm/slab.c
> > +++ b/mm/slab.c
> > @@ -930,7 +930,8 @@ static void *__ac_put_obj(struct kmem_cache *cachep, struct array_cache *ac,
> > {
> > if (unlikely(pfmemalloc_active)) {
> > /* Some pfmemalloc slabs exist, check if this is one */
> > - struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(objp);
> > + struct slab *slabp = virt_to_slab(objp);
> > + struct page *page = virt_to_head_page(slabp->s_mem);
> > if (PageSlabPfmemalloc(page))
>
> I hope the compiler optimizes this code correctly because virt_to_slab
> already does one virt_to_head_page()?
It should not.
objp could be in a different page with slabp->s_mem's,
so virt_to_head_page() should be called twice.
Anyway, after implementing struct slab overloading, one call site is
removed by [14/15] in this patchset, so there is no issue.
Thanks.
>
> Otherwise this looks fine.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>