Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 23-11-17 18:56:53, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 23/11/2017 07:34, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > >> Just fix the numa aware shrinkers, as they are the only ones that > > > >> will have this problem. There are only 6 of them, and only the 3 > > > >> that existed at the time that register_shrinker() was changed to > > > >> return an error fail to check for an error. i.e. the superblock > > > >> shrinker, the XFS dquot shrinker and the XFS buffer cache shrinker. > > > > > > > > You are assuming the "too small to fail" memory-allocation rule > > > > by ignoring that this problem is caused by fault injection. > > > > > > Fault injection should also obey the too small to fail rule, at least by > > > default. > > > > > > > Pardon? Most allocation requests in the kernel are <= 32KB. > > Such change makes fault injection useless. ;-) > > Agreed! All we need is to fix the shrinker registration callers. It is > that simple. The rest is just a distraction. > Which coverage (all register_shrinker() callers or only SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE callers) are you talking about? If the former, keeping __must_check is OK. If the latter, it will not avoid future oops reports with fault injection. -- 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>
