From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE1FC2B9F8 for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 11:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05AB061413 for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 11:33:31 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 05AB061413 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=techsingularity.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 06F186B006C; Tue, 25 May 2021 07:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 045846B006E; Tue, 25 May 2021 07:33:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E51986B0070; Tue, 25 May 2021 07:33:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0189.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.189]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BE66B006C for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 07:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin34.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD208E7B for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 11:33:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78179542980.34.618E876 Received: from outbound-smtp21.blacknight.com (outbound-smtp21.blacknight.com [81.17.249.41]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6405A600025C for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 11:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail01.blacknight.ie [81.17.254.10]) by outbound-smtp21.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00706CCB27 for ; Tue, 25 May 2021 12:33:18 +0100 (IST) Received: (qmail 9938 invoked from network); 25 May 2021 11:33:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO techsingularity.net) (mgorman@techsingularity.net@[84.203.23.168]) by 81.17.254.9 with ESMTPSA (AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 25 May 2021 11:33:18 -0000 Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 12:33:17 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Joonsoo Kim , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Thomas Gleixner , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Peter Zijlstra , Jann Horn Subject: Re: [RFC 02/26] mm, slub: allocate private object map for validate_slab_cache() Message-ID: <20210525113317.GM30378@techsingularity.net> References: <20210524233946.20352-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <20210524233946.20352-3-vbabka@suse.cz> <20210525101742.GK30378@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Authentication-Results: imf25.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf25.hostedemail.com: domain of mgorman@techsingularity.net designates 81.17.249.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mgorman@techsingularity.net X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6405A600025C X-Stat-Signature: yre73eyfk5hw86aunxmgqfchqfgksqqx X-HE-Tag: 1621942399-215313 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:36:52PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > Most callers of validate_slab_cache don't care about the return value > > except when the validate sysfs file is written. Should a simply > > informational message be displayed for -ENOMEM in case a writer to > > validate fails and it's not obvious it was because of an allocation > > failure? > > he other callers are all in the effectively dead resiliency_test() code, which > has meanwhile been replaced in mmotm by kunit tests meanwhile. But it's true > those don't check the results either for now. > Ok. > > It's a fairly minor concern so whether you add a message or not > > I think I'll rather fix up the tests. Or do you mean that -ENOMEM for a sysfs > write is also not enough and there should be a dmesg explanation for that case? > I mean the -ENOMEM for a sysfs write. While it's very unlikely, it might would explain an unexpected write failure. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs