From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx148.postini.com [74.125.245.148]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D14D56B0031 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 02:28:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u53so5586842wes.9 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:28:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <51B67553.6020205@oracle.com> References: <1370891880-2644-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> <51B62F6B.8040308@oracle.com> <0000013f3075f90d-735942a8-b4b8-413f-a09e-57d1de0c4974-000000@email.amazonses.com> <51B67553.6020205@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:28:50 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: prevent warnings when allocating with __GFP_NOWARN From: Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sasha Levin Cc: Christoph Lameter , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , LKML Hi Sasha, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 06/10/2013 07:40 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >>> [ 1691.807621] Call Trace: >>> [ 1691.809473] [] dump_stack+0x4e/0x82 >>> [ 1691.812783] [] warn_slowpath_common+0x82/0xb0 >>> [ 1691.817011] [] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20 >>> [ 1691.819936] [] kmalloc_slab+0x2f/0xb0 >>> [ 1691.824942] [] __kmalloc+0x24/0x4b0 >>> [ 1691.827285] [] ? security_capable+0x13/0x20 >>> [ 1691.829405] [] ? pipe_fcntl+0x107/0x210 >>> [ 1691.831827] [] pipe_fcntl+0x107/0x210 >>> [ 1691.833651] [] ? fget_raw_light+0x130/0x3f0 >>> [ 1691.835343] [] SyS_fcntl+0x60b/0x6a0 >>> [ 1691.837008] [] tracesys+0xe1/0xe6 >>> >>> The caller specifically sets __GFP_NOWARN presumably to avoid this >>> warning on >>> slub but I'm not sure if there's any other reason. >> >> >> There must be another reason. Lets fix this. > > My, I feel silly now. > > I was the one who added __GFP_NOFAIL in the first place in > 2ccd4f4d ("pipe: fail cleanly when root tries F_SETPIPE_SZ > with big size"). > > What happens is that root can go ahead and specify any size > it wants to be used as buffer size - and the kernel will > attempt to comply by allocation that buffer. Which fails > if the size is too big. > > Either way, even if we do end up doing something different, > shouldn't we prevent slab from spewing a warning if > __GFP_NOWARN is passed? Yeah, this is the size-from-userspace case I was thinking about. I think we have two options: either use your patch or drop the WARN_ON completely. Christoph, which one do you prefer? Pekka -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org