[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210325124032.GR3697@techsingularity.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:40:32 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Net <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-NFS <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] mm/page_alloc: optimize code layout for
__alloc_pages_bulk
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:12:17PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:42:23AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nr_pages <= 0))
> > + if (unlikely(nr_pages <= 0))
> > return 0;
>
> If we made nr_pages unsigned, we wouldn't need this check at all (ok,
> we'd still need to figure out what to do with 0). But then, if a user
> inadvertently passes in -ENOMEM, we'll try to allocate 4 billion pages.
This is exactly why nr_pages is signed. An error in accounting by the
caller potentially puts the system under severe memory pressure. This
*should* only be a problem when a new caller of the API is being
implemented. The warning goes away in a later patch for reasons explained
in the changelog.
> So maybe we should check it. Gah, API design is hard.
Yep.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists