Re: [PATCH] Factor in buddy allocator alignment requirements in node memory alignment

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:47:19PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Just because it complains doesn't mean that anything is actually
> wrong :)
> 
> Do you know which pieces of code actually break if the alignment doesn't
> meet what that warning says?

Be sure in early 2001 the alpha wildfire wasn't booting without having
natural alingment from the 2^order allocation, after several days of
debugging and crashing eventually I figured it out and added the printk
(it couldn't be a BUG since it was early in the boot to see it). The
kernel stack on x86 w/o 4k stacks depends on the natural alignment of
the 2^order buddy allocations for example. No idea how much other code
would break with not naturally aligned 2^order allocations.
-
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/