Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1620867
| From | Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: clear_page, copy_page address align question? |
| Date | 2017-04-11 05:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tuUFb-1vV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tuUlP-1p3-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuUvw-1sy-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:12:24PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 12:08 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hello, > > > > When I tested zram in ppc64, I got random corruption. > > With investigation, it seems clear_page corrupted the memory. > > I passed 64K kmalloced(kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE)) address to clear_page > > and turned on slub debug so address is not aligned with PAGE_SIZE. > > Is it a valid usecase that non-PAGE_SIZE aligned address is > > used for clear_page in ppc64? > > > > As well, copy_page have same rule, too? > > > > Anyway, when I changed clear_page to memset, it seems the problem > > is gone. > > Yes, both clear_page and copy_page assume a PAGE_SHIFT alignment and > are highly optimize according to this. > > I wouldn't be surprised of other architectures implementations are the > same. > > I don't think it's ever legit to call these functions for something > that isn't a naturally aligned page. If it's the common for every architecture, it would have better to have description about that in somewhere or WARN_ON. :( Thanks for the confirm!
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
clear_page, copy_page address align question? Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2017-04-11 05:10 +0200
Re: clear_page, copy_page address align question? Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> - 2017-04-11 05:20 +0200
Re: clear_page, copy_page address align question? Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2017-04-11 05:30 +0200
csiph-web