Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | | Date | Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:25:12 -0700 | | From | Andrew Morton <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memcg remove warning at DEBUG_VM=off |
| |
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:57:15 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-04-08 14:20:42]: > > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > This is against 2.6.30-rc1. (maybe no problem against mmotm.) > > > > == > > Fix warning as > > > > CC mm/memcontrol.o > > mm/memcontrol.c:318: warning: ?$B!Fmem_cgroup_is_obsolete?$B!G defined but not used > > > > This is called only from VM_BUG_ON(). > > > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > --- > > Index: linux-2.6.30-rc1/mm/memcontrol.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.30-rc1.orig/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ linux-2.6.30-rc1/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -314,13 +314,14 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cg > > return mem; > > } > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM > > static bool mem_cgroup_is_obsolete(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > > { > > if (!mem) > > return true; > > return css_is_removed(&mem->css); > > } > > - > > +#endif > > Can we change the code to use > > VM_BUG_ON(!mem || css_is_removed(&mem->css)); >
yup.
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c~memcg-remove-warning-when-config_debug_vm=n-fix +++ a/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -314,14 +314,13 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cg return mem; } -#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM static bool mem_cgroup_is_obsolete(struct mem_cgroup *mem) { if (!mem) return true; return css_is_removed(&mem->css); } -#endif + /* * Call callback function against all cgroup under hierarchy tree. @@ -933,7 +932,7 @@ static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struc if (unlikely(!mem)) return 0; - VM_BUG_ON(mem_cgroup_is_obsolete(mem)); + VM_BUG_ON(!mem || mem_cgroup_is_obsolete(mem)); while (1) { int ret; _ Although it really should be
VM_BUG_ON(!mem); VM_BUG_ON(mem_cgroup_is_obsolete(mem));
because if that BUG triggers, you'll be wondering which case caused it.
|  |