On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 09:18:46PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 10:05:19PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 08:47:12PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> > > > @@ -2781,11 +2781,11 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > if (!area->pages) {
> > > > - free_vm_area(area);
> > > > warn_alloc(gfp_mask, NULL,
> > > > "vmalloc size %lu allocation failure: "
> > > > "page array size %lu allocation failed",
> > > > nr_small_pages * PAGE_SIZE, array_size);
> > > > + free_vm_area(area);
> > > > return NULL;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > I think this is a bad idea. We're clearly low on memory (a memory
> > > allocation just failed). We should free the memory we have allocated
> > > to improve the chances of the warning message making it out.
> > Not sure if i fully follow you here. We do free the memory. The intention
> > was to print a warning message first because, if, potentially, the
> > free_vm_area(area) also does some prints it would be a bit messy from the
> > point what has been broken first.
> >
> > So, could you please clarify what was your concern?
>
> We may need to allocate memory in order to emit the error message.
>
> Your commit message didn't mention the potential confusion, and I think
> that is worth adding for a v4.
I agree that the commit message should be updated in regard of potential
confusion, because it was the main intention of this patch.
I will upload a v4 tomorrow.
--
Vlad Rezki
