Hi KOSAKI, On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 01:39:13AM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Wanpeng Li <liwanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi KOSAKI, >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:15:29PM -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>>On 9/14/2013 7:45 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>>> Changelog: >>>> *v2 -> v3: revert commit 46c001a2 directly >>>> >>>> Don't warning twice in __vmalloc_area_node and __vmalloc_node_range if >>>> __vmalloc_area_node allocation failure. This patch revert commit 46c001a2 >>>> (mm/vmalloc.c: emit the failure message before return). >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c >>>> index d78d117..e3ec8b4 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c >>>> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c >>>> @@ -1635,7 +1635,7 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align, >>>> >>>> addr = __vmalloc_area_node(area, gfp_mask, prot, node, caller); >>>> if (!addr) >>>> - goto fail; >>>> + return NULL; >> >> The goto fail is introduced by commit (mm/vmalloc.c: emit the failure message >> before return), and the commit author ignore there has already have warning in >> __vmalloc_area_node. >> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=137818671125209&w=2 > >But, module_alloc() directly calls __vmalloc_node_range(). Your fix >makes another regression. I'm not sure what's the regression you mentioned. Before patch: module_alloc -> __vmalloc_node_range (waring for the second time) <-| -> __vmalloc_area_node (warning for the first time) --| After patch: module_alloc -> __vmalloc_node_range <-| -> __vmalloc_area_node (warning once) --| > > >>>This is not right fix. Now we have following call stack. >>> >>> __vmalloc_node >>> __vmalloc_node_range >>> __vmalloc_node >>> >>>Even if we remove a warning of __vmalloc_node_range, we still be able to see double warning >>>because we call __vmalloc_node recursively. >> >> Different size allocation failure in your example actually. > >But, when we can not allocate small size memory, almost always we >can't allocate large size too. > >You need some refactoring and make right fix. There is warning in __vmalloc_area_node for different size which you metioned, could you point out what need refactor? ;-) Regards, Wanpeng Li -- 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>