On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:58 AM, yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2015-05-18 21:04 GMT+08:00 Anisse Astier <anisse@xxxxxxxxx>: >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Ok. So there is class of errors where this helps, but you are not >>> aware of any such errors in kernel, so you can't fix them... Right? >> >> Correct. >> -- >> 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/ > i feel your patch is the same as CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC , > the difference is that CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC will clear > page to a magic number, while your patch will > clear to zero, > do we really need this duplicated function ? It's different because DEBUG_PAGEALLOC will only use page poisoning on certain architectures, and clearing a page to a magic number doesn't allow to optimize alloc with _GFP_ZERO. Regards, Anisse -- 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>