On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/23/2017 01:16 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> To be honest, I can't figure that out either, maybe it is or
>> maybe not,
>
>
> Seems the report is correct and not false positive, in scenario when we goto
> nopage before the assignment, and then goto retry because of __GFP_NOFAIL.
Ok, thanks for checking!
>> but moving the existing initialization up a little
>> higher looks safe and makes it obvious to both me and gcc that
>> the initialization comes before the first use.
>>
>> Fixes: 74eaa4a97e8e ("mm: consolidate GFP_NOFAIL checks in the allocator
>> slowpath")
>
>
> That's a non-stable -next commit ID for mmotm patch:
> mm-consolidate-gfp_nofail-checks-in-the-allocator-slowpath.patch
>
> The patch itself was OK, the problem only comes from integration with
> another mmotm patch (also independently OK):
> mm-page_alloc-fix-premature-oom-when-racing-with-cpuset-mems-update.patch
>
> By their ordering in mmotm, it would work to treat this as a fix for the
> GFP_NOFAIL patch, possibly merged into it.
Ok. I only tracked down which commit introduced the warning, which was
the one above.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
