On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:02:21PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:14:32PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:35:02AM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 10:50:22 +0200
> > >
> > > Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in these functions.
> > >
> > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > mm/kmemleak.c | 5 +----
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > > index 7780cd83a495..c6c798d90b2e 100644
> > > --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> > > +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > > @@ -555,7 +555,6 @@ static struct kmemleak_object *create_object(unsigned long ptr, size_t size,
> > >
> > > object = kmem_cache_alloc(object_cache, gfp_kmemleak_mask(gfp));
> > > if (!object) {
> > > - pr_warn("Cannot allocate a kmemleak_object structure\n");
> > > kmemleak_disable();
> >
> > I don't really get what this patch is trying to achieve. Given that
> > kmemleak will be disabled after this, I'd rather know why it happened.
>
> kmem_cache_alloc() will generate a stack trace and a bunch of more
> useful information if it fails. The allocation isn't likely to fail,
> but if it does you will know. The extra message is just wasting RAM.
Currently kmemleak uses __GFP_NOWARN for its own metadata allocation, so
we wouldn't see the sl*b warnings. I don't fully remember why I went for
this gfp flag, probably not to interfere with other messages printed by
the allocator (kmemleak_alloc is called from within sl*b).
I'm fine to drop __GFP_NOWARN and remove those extra messages.
--
Catalin
--
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>
