On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Alexander Beregalov wrote: > > There should be a stack trace here printed out by the page allocator. > > Can you post that too? > > I do not see it: Aah, it's a false positive. The following patch ought to fix it. Pekka >From d3b9557331bf4b73b80632b15eed062bf30683ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:18:09 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] SLUB: Don't print out OOM warning for __GFP_NOFAIL We must check for __GFP_NOFAIL like the page allocator does; otherwise we end up with false positives. While at it, add the printk_ratelimit() check in SLUB as well. Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- mm/slub.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c index c0d5341..4d7cabf 100644 --- a/mm/slub.c +++ b/mm/slub.c @@ -1631,7 +1631,8 @@ new_slab: c->page = new; goto load_freelist; } - slab_out_of_memory(s, gfpflags, node); + if (!(gfpflags & __GFP_NOWARN) && printk_ratelimit()) + slab_out_of_memory(s, gfpflags, node); return NULL; debug: if (!alloc_debug_processing(s, c->page, object, addr)) -- 1.6.0.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
