[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101101232580.11969@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:36:10 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@....de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Reduce verbosity when memory allocation
fails
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
> index bd9bc21..eee8e31 100644
> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,8 @@
> #define BYTES_PER_POINTER sizeof(void *)
>
> /* GFP bitmask for kmemleak internal allocations */
> -#define GFP_KMEMLEAK_MASK (GFP_KERNEL | GFP_ATOMIC)
> +#define gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp) ((gfp) & (GFP_KERNEL | GFP_ATOMIC) | \
> + __GFP_NOWARN)
It would be a shame if the allocation were __GFP_NORETRY and kmemleak
ended up looping forever because it suppresses the bit for a single page,
it uses __GFP_NOMEMALLOC and kmemleak ends up allocating from memory
reserves, or it uses __GFP_HARDWALL and kmemleak is allocating metadata in
a different cpuset.
I'm not sure why you're not just masking __GFP_NOFAIL and __GFP_REPEAT and
then failing gracefully? (And __GFP_ZERO and __GFP_COMP, too, of course.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists