On 01/29/2016 02:30 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
@@ -807,9 +810,10 @@ static void its_free_tables(struct its_node *its)
int i;
for (i = 0; i < GITS_BASER_NR_REGS; i++) {
- if (its->tables[i]) {
- free_page((unsigned long)its->tables[i]);
- its->tables[i] = NULL;
+ if (its->tables[i].base) {
+ free_pages((unsigned long)its->tables[i].base,
+ get_order(its->tables[i].size));
+ its->tables[i].base = NULL;
}
}
}
@@ -880,6 +884,7 @@ retry_alloc_baser:
if (alloc_pages > GITS_BASER_PAGES_MAX) {
alloc_pages = GITS_BASER_PAGES_MAX;
order = get_order(GITS_BASER_PAGES_MAX * psz);
+ alloc_size = (1 << order) * PAGE_SIZE;
Why don't you record the order instead of converting back and forth ?
I can use page order information to fix memory leak and I will post v3
patch with your suggestion.
We have another coding BUG which is related to not refreshing alloc_size
whenever order changes.
Because we are not updating alloc_size variable here, later part of the
code logic uses incorrect
alloc_size value in two places as shown below.
Code snippet-1:
if (!shr) {
cache = GITS_BASER_nC;
__flush_dcache_area(base, alloc_size);
}
Code snippet-2:
pr_info("ITS: allocated %d %s @%lx (psz %dK, shr %d)\n",
(int)(alloc_size / entry_size),
its_base_type_string[type],
(unsigned long)virt_to_phys(base),
psz / SZ_1K, (int)shr >> GITS_BASER_SHAREABILITY_SHIFT);
How do you suggest I fix the second problem? Should I create another
patch or include in v3 patch?
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
