Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/3] s390: query dynamic DEBUG_PAGEALLOC setting

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Joonsoo Kim wrote:

> > I'd agree if CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC only did anything when 
> > debug_pagealloc_enabled() is true, but that doesn't seem to be the case.  
> > When CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB is enabled, for instance, CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC 
> > also enables stackinfo storing and poisoning and it's not guarded by 
> > debug_pagealloc_enabled().
> > 
> > It seems like CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC enables debugging functionality 
> > outside the scope of the debug_pagealloc=on kernel parameter, so 
> > DEBUG_PAGEALLOC(disabled) actually does mean something.
> 
> Hello, David.
> 
> I tried to fix CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB case on 04/16 of following patchset.
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/144527
> 
> I found that there are more sites to fix but not so many.
> We can do it.
> 

For the slab case, sure, this can be fixed, but there is other code that 
uses CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC to suggest debugging is always enabled and is 
indifferent to debug_pagealloc_enabled().  I find this in powerpc and 
sparc arch code as well as generic vmalloc code.  

If we can convert existing users that only check for 
CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC to rather check for debug_pagealloc_enabled() and 
agree that it is only enabled for debug_pagealloc=on, then this would seem 
fine.  However, I think we should at least consult with those users before 
removing an artifact from the kernel log that could be useful in debugging 
why a particular BUG() happened.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>