[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ayX8vzd2JPrLeFhf3K_Quf4x6SDtmtkNJuwNLyOh67tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:18:25 +0200
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
syzbot+87829a10073277282ad1@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: kmalloc bug in input_mt_init_slots
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
>> What was the motivation behind that WARNING about large allocations in
>> kmalloc? Why do we want to know about them? Is the general policy that
>> kmalloc calls with potentially large size requests need to use NOWARN?
>> If this WARNING still considered useful? Or we should change it to
>> pr_err?
>
> In general large allocs should be satisfied by the page allocator. The
> slab allocators are used for allocating and managing small objects. The
> page allocator has mechanisms to deal with large objects (compound pages,
> multiple page sized allocs etc).
I am asking more about the status of this warning. If it fires in
input_mt_init_slots(), does it mean that input_mt_init_slots() needs
to be fixed? If not, then we need to change this warning to something
else.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists