lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RFC 02/26] mm, slub: allocate private object map for validate_slab_cache()
    From
    Date
    On 5/25/21 1:33 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
    > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:36:52PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
    >> > Most callers of validate_slab_cache don't care about the return value
    >> > except when the validate sysfs file is written. Should a simply
    >> > informational message be displayed for -ENOMEM in case a writer to
    >> > validate fails and it's not obvious it was because of an allocation
    >> > failure?
    >>
    >> he other callers are all in the effectively dead resiliency_test() code, which
    >> has meanwhile been replaced in mmotm by kunit tests meanwhile. But it's true
    >> those don't check the results either for now.
    >>
    >
    > Ok.
    >
    >> > It's a fairly minor concern so whether you add a message or not
    >>
    >> I think I'll rather fix up the tests. Or do you mean that -ENOMEM for a sysfs
    >> write is also not enough and there should be a dmesg explanation for that case?
    >>
    >
    > I mean the -ENOMEM for a sysfs write. While it's very unlikely, it might
    > would explain an unexpected write failure.

    On second thought, a failed GFP_KERNEL allocation will already generate a
    prominent warning, so an extra message looks arbitrary.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-06-08 12:38    [W:4.121 / U:0.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site