[PATCH 01/08] Possibly already fixed leaks and cleanup
Against: numactl-2.0.3-rc2
Kornilios says these [Hunks #1 and 3] are already fixed,
so I pulled them into a separate patch.
Hunk #2 that modifies numa_alloc_local() just reorganizes the code
to match the structure of numa_alloc_onnode() with, I think, no change
in behavior. This is probably not "already fixed".
I suppose I could/should change those '(char *)-1's to MAP_FAILED, too...
libnuma.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Index: numactl-2.0.3-rc2/libnuma.c
===================================================================
--- numactl-2.0.3-rc2.orig/libnuma.c 2009-04-27 08:47:14.000000000 -0400
+++ numactl-2.0.3-rc2/libnuma.c 2009-04-27 09:01:33.000000000 -0400
@@ -919,8 +919,10 @@ void *numa_alloc_onnode(size_t size, int
mem = mmap(0, size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS,
0, 0);
if (mem == (char *)-1)
- return NULL;
- dombind(mem, size, bind_policy, bmp);
+ mem = NULL;
+ else
+ dombind(mem, size, bind_policy, bmp);
+ numa_bitmask_free(bmp);
return mem;
}
@@ -930,8 +932,9 @@ void *numa_alloc_local(size_t size)
mem = mmap(0, size, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS,
0, 0);
if (mem == (char *)-1)
- return NULL;
- dombind(mem, size, MPOL_PREFERRED, NULL);
+ mem = NULL;
+ else
+ dombind(mem, size, MPOL_PREFERRED, NULL);
return mem;
}
@@ -1496,7 +1499,7 @@ int numa_run_on_node(int node)
int numa_preferred(void)
{
- int policy;
+ int policy, node = 0;
struct bitmask *bmp;
bmp = numa_allocate_nodemask();
@@ -1505,12 +1508,15 @@ int numa_preferred(void)
int i;
int max = numa_num_possible_nodes();
for (i = 0; i < max ; i++)
- if (numa_bitmask_isbitset(bmp, i))
- return i;
+ if (numa_bitmask_isbitset(bmp, i)) {
+ node = i;
+ break;
+ }
}
/* could read the current CPU from /proc/self/status. Probably
not worth it. */
- return 0; /* or random one? */
+ numa_bitmask_free(bmp);
+ return node;
}
void numa_set_preferred(int node)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
