Hello, Sasha. 2012/12/28 Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 12/27/2012 06:04 PM, David Rientjes wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >>> That's exactly what happens with the patch. Note that in the current upstream >>> version there are several slab checks scattered all over. >>> >>> In this case for example, I'm removing it from __alloc_bootmem_node(), but the >>> first code line of__alloc_bootmem_node_nopanic() is: >>> >>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available())) >>> return kzalloc(size, GFP_NOWAIT); >>> >> >> You're only talking about mm/bootmem.c and not mm/nobootmem.c, and notice >> that __alloc_bootmem_node() does not call __alloc_bootmem_node_nopanic(), >> it calls ___alloc_bootmem_node_nopanic(). > > Holy cow, this is an underscore hell. > > > Thanks, > Sasha > I have a different idea. How about removing fallback allocation in bootmem.c completely? I don't know why it is there exactly. But, warning for 'slab_is_available()' is there for a long time. So, most people who misuse fallback allocation change their code adequately. I think that removing fallback at this time is valid. Isn't it? Fallback allocation may cause possible bug. If someone free a memory from fallback allocation, it can't be handled properly. So, IMHO, at this time, we should remove fallback allocation in bootmem.c entirely. Please let me know what I misunderstand. Thanks. -- 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>