On Thu 01-09-22 16:14:39, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 8/30/22 09:34, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [Cc Dan] > > Dan has brought up[1] that the use of gfp mask has confused his static > > analyzer which assumes that GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE implies a sleeping > > allocation and that wouldn't be a great idea from the panic path. I > > would add that most callers of this function would be really bad to > > allocate. > > > > The report itself is a false positive but it made me think a bit about > > this. Even if the check is too simplistic I guess it resembles how many > > developers are thinking (including me). If I see GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE or > > GF_KERNEL I automatically assume a sleeping allocation down the road. > > And who know somebody might add one in the future even into show_mem > > because the gfp parameter would be too tempting to not (ab)use. > > > > My original intention was to use a natural allocation speak but this can > > backfire so maybe it would be better to give the argument its real > > meaning and that is the high_zone_idx. This is cryptic for code outside > > of MM but that is not all that many callers and we can hide this fact > > from them. In other words does the thing below looks better (incremental > > for illustration, I will make it a proper patch if yes)? > > Yeah, looks better to me this way. Thanks! Thanks for looking into this. Unless somebody objects I will send a consolidated patch early next week. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
