On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The kmalloc() in bio_integrity_prep() is failable, so remove __GFP_NOFAIL
> > from its mask.
> >
> > Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/bio-integrity.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/bio-integrity.c b/fs/bio-integrity.c
> > --- a/fs/bio-integrity.c
> > +++ b/fs/bio-integrity.c
> > @@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ int bio_integrity_prep(struct bio *bio)
> >
> > /* Allocate kernel buffer for protection data */
> > len = sectors * blk_integrity_tuple_size(bi);
> > - buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_NOIO | __GFP_NOFAIL | q->bounce_gfp);
> > + buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_NOIO | q->bounce_gfp);
> > if (unlikely(buf == NULL)) {
> > printk(KERN_ERR "could not allocate integrity buffer\n");
> > return -EIO;
>
> ^^^ what?
>
Right, I'm not sure why that decision was made, but it looks like it can
be changed over to -ENOMEM without harming anything. I'm concerned that
the printk will spam the kernel log endlessly, though, if we're really oom
and GFP_NOIO has no hope of freeing memory. This code has never been
active, so I'd like to wait for some feedback from Al and Jens (now with a
corrected email address, jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx bounced) to see if we want
to return -ENOMEM, if the printk is really necessary, and if it would be
better to just convert this to a loop with a congestion_wait() instead of
returning from bio_integrity_prep().
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>