On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
>
> If vmalloc() was successful, do not attempt a kmalloc_array()
>
> Fixes: 4cf0b354d92e ("rhashtable: avoid large lock-array allocations")
> Reported-by: CAI Qian <caiq...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
> Cc: Florian Westphal <f...@strlen.de>
> ---
> lib/rhashtable.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
> index 5ba520b544d7..56054e541a0f 100644
> --- a/lib/rhashtable.c
> +++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
> @@ -77,17 +77,18 @@ static int alloc_bucket_locks(struct rhashtable *ht,
> struct bucket_table *tbl,
> size = min_t(unsigned int, size, tbl->size >> 1);
>
> if (sizeof(spinlock_t) != 0) {
> + tbl->locks = NULL;
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> if (size * sizeof(spinlock_t) > PAGE_SIZE &&
> gfp == GFP_KERNEL)
> tbl->locks = vmalloc(size * sizeof(spinlock_t));
> - else
> #endif
Not directly for your patch, but why did we have this CONFIG_NUMA
for vmalloc()? I think this macro is the real cause of the bug. :-P
