From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@gmail.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't warn about large allocations for slab
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:17:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+atu0Fz0Bhqn+7qpRowySEVWXV+vwVbBZ5y3Z+NnSpLsQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <010001661bba2bbc-a5074e00-2009-414a-be8c-05c58545c7ec-000000@email.amazonses.com>
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
>> From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
>>
>> This warning does not seem to be useful. Most of the time it fires when
>> allocation size depends on syscall arguments. We could add __GFP_NOWARN
>> to these allocation sites, but having a warning only to suppress it
>> does not make lots of sense. Moreover, this warnings never fires for
>> constant-size allocations and never for slub, because there are
>> additional checks and fallback to kmalloc_large() for large allocations
>> and kmalloc_large() does not warn. So the warning only fires for
>> non-constant allocations and only with slab, which is odd to begin with.
>> The warning leads to episodic unuseful syzbot reports. Remote it.
>
> /Remove/
>
> If its only for slab then KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE and KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE are
> the same value.
>
>> While we are here also fix the check. We should check against
>> KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE rather than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE. It all kinda
>> worked because for slab the constants are the same, and slub always
>> checks the size against KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE before kmalloc_slab().
>> But if we get there with size > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE anyhow
>> bad things will happen.
>
> Then the WARN_ON is correct just change the constant used. Ensure that
> SLAB does the same checks as SLUB.
Mailed v2 which adds the checks to slab.
I think the warning is still slightly wrong. It means a bug in slab
code, it has nothing to do with user-passed flags.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-27 17:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-27 13:07 Dmitry Vyukov
2018-09-27 15:51 ` Christopher Lameter
2018-09-27 17:17 ` Dmitry Vyukov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CACT4Y+atu0Fz0Bhqn+7qpRowySEVWXV+vwVbBZ5y3Z+NnSpLsQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dvyukov@gmail.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox