Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: Split stall warning and failure warning.

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Andrew Morton wrote:

> I interpret __GFP_NOWARN to mean "don't warn about this allocation
> attempt failing", not "don't warn about anything at all".  It's a very
> minor issue but yes, methinks that stall warning should still come out.
> 

Agreed, and we have found this to be helpful in automated memory stress 
tests.

I agree that masking off __GFP_NOWARN and then reporting the gfp_mask to 
the user is only harmful.  If the allocation stalls vs allocation failure 
warnings are separated such as you have done, it is easily preventable.

I have a couple of suggestions for Tetsuo about this patch, though:

 - We now have show_mem_rs, stall_rs, and nopage_rs.  Ugh.  I think it's
   better to get rid of show_mem_rs and let warn_alloc_common() not 
   enforce any ratelimiting at all and leave it to the callers.

 - warn_alloc() is probably better off renamed to warn_alloc_failed()
   since it enforces __GFP_NOWARN and uses an allocation failure ratelimit 
   regardless of what the passed text is.

It may also be slightly off-topic, but I think it would be useful to print 
current's pid.  I find printing its parent's pid and comm helpful when 
using shared libraries, but you may not agree.

Otherwise, I think this is a good direction.

--
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>