On Thu, 29 May 2008 22:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: per-cpu alignment %li > %li\n", > > > + mod->name, align, PAGE_SIZE); > > > > Indenting broke. > > Hmmm. Okay. > > > Alas, PAGE_SIZE has, iirc, unsigned type on some architectures and > > unsigned long on others. I suspect you'll need to cast it to be able > > to print it. > > This is code that was moved. > > > > + percpu = cpu_alloc(size, GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO, align); > > > + if (!percpu) > > > + printk(KERN_WARNING "Could not allocate %lu bytes percpu data\n", > > > > 80-col bustage,. > > > > A printk like this should, I think, identify what part of the kernel it > > came from. > > Again moved code. Should I really do string separations for code > that is moved? That's not a string separation - it is a functional improvement. Sure, why not fix these little things while we're there? > > But really, I don't think any printk should be present here. > > cpu_alloc() itself should dump the warning and the backtrace when it > > runs out. Because a cpu_alloc() failure is a major catastrophe. It > > probably means a reconfigure-and-reboot cycle. > > The code has been able to deal with an allocpercpu failure in the > past. Why would it have trouble with a cpu_alloc failure here? Because an alloc_percpu failure is a page allocator failure. This is a well-known situation which we know basically never happens, or at least happens under well-known circumstances. Whereas a cpu_alloc() failure is a dead box. We cannot fix it via running page reclaim. We cannot fix it via oom-killing someone. We are dead. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
