All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, azurIt <azurit@pobox.sk>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@free.fr>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 17:22:48 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131216082247.GA5334@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00000142ecd51cc6-b987e565-7b4f-4945-89ba-731f1d1376fb-000000@email.amazonses.com>

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 04:40:58PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 
> > Could you review this patch?
> > I think that we should merge it to fix the problem reported by Christian.
> 
> I'd be fine with clearing __GFP_NOFAIL but not with using the same flags
> as for a higher order alloc. __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOWARN should be left
> untouched for the minimal alloc.

Hello.

So you don't want to add __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOWARN for kmemcheck?
I think that it isn't good idea, since users would meet *unexpected*
allocation failure if they enable kmemcheck and slub uses different flags
for kmemcheck. It makes users who want to debug their own problems embarrass.

Thanks.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, azurIt <azurit@pobox.sk>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@free.fr>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 17:22:48 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131216082247.GA5334@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00000142ecd51cc6-b987e565-7b4f-4945-89ba-731f1d1376fb-000000@email.amazonses.com>

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 04:40:58PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 
> > Could you review this patch?
> > I think that we should merge it to fix the problem reported by Christian.
> 
> I'd be fine with clearing __GFP_NOFAIL but not with using the same flags
> as for a higher order alloc. __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOWARN should be left
> untouched for the minimal alloc.

Hello.

So you don't want to add __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOWARN for kmemcheck?
I think that it isn't good idea, since users would meet *unexpected*
allocation failure if they enable kmemcheck and slub uses different flags
for kmemcheck. It makes users who want to debug their own problems embarrass.

Thanks.

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim-Hm3cg6mZ9cc@public.gmane.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl-vYTEC60ixJUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton
	<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>,
	azurIt <azurit-Rm0zKEqwvD4@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org,
	cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	Christian Casteyde
	<casteyde.christian-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 17:22:48 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131216082247.GA5334@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00000142ecd51cc6-b987e565-7b4f-4945-89ba-731f1d1376fb-000000-p/GC64/jrecnJqMo6gzdpkEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 04:40:58PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 
> > Could you review this patch?
> > I think that we should merge it to fix the problem reported by Christian.
> 
> I'd be fine with clearing __GFP_NOFAIL but not with using the same flags
> as for a higher order alloc. __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOWARN should be left
> untouched for the minimal alloc.

Hello.

So you don't want to add __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOWARN for kmemcheck?
I think that it isn't good idea, since users would meet *unexpected*
allocation failure if they enable kmemcheck and slub uses different flags
for kmemcheck. It makes users who want to debug their own problems embarrass.

Thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2013-12-16  8:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-08 20:58 [patch 1/2] mm: memcg: handle non-error OOM situations more gracefully Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58 ` [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58   ` Johannes Weiner
2013-10-08 20:58   ` Johannes Weiner
2013-10-11 20:51   ` Andrew Morton
2013-10-11 20:51     ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  0:59   ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  0:59     ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  1:52     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04  1:52       ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04  1:52       ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04  2:07       ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  2:07         ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  2:07         ` Andrew Morton
2013-12-04  2:42         ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04  2:42           ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04 15:17         ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-04 15:17           ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-04 15:17           ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-04 16:02           ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04 16:02             ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-04 16:33             ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-04 16:33               ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-05  8:44               ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-05  8:44                 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-05 18:50                 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-05 18:50                   ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-06  8:57                   ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-06  8:57                     ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-13  6:58       ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-13  6:58         ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-13  6:58         ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-13 16:40         ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-13 16:40           ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-16  8:22           ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2013-12-16  8:22             ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-12-16  8:22             ` Joonsoo Kim

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=20131216082247.GA5334@lge.com \
    --to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=azurit@pobox.sk \
    --cc=casteyde.christian@free.fr \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.