On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:06:09AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> As is explained by Michal Hocko:
>
> : Looking at the history, this has been added by 82f71ae4a2b8
> : ("mm: catch memory commitment underflow") to have a safety check
> : for issues which have been fixed. There doesn't seem to be any bug
> : reports mentioning this splat since then so it is likely just
> : spending cycles for a hot path (yes many people run with DEBUG_VM)
> : without a strong reason.
Hmm, it looks like the warning is still useful to catch issues in,
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20140624201606.18273.44270.stgit@zurg
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/54bb9a32.7080...@oracle.com/
After read the whole discussion in that thread, I actually disagree with
Michal. In order to get ride of this existing warning, it is rather
someone needs a strong reason that could prove the performance hit is
noticeable with some data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.t...@intel.com>
> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koc...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Qian Cai <c...@lca.pw>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.com>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi.kl...@intel.com>
> ---
> mm/util.c | 8 --------
> 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
> index 3c7a08c..fe63271 100644
> --- a/mm/util.c
> +++ b/mm/util.c
> @@ -814,14 +814,6 @@ int __vm_enough_memory(struct mm_struct *mm, long pages,
> int cap_sys_admin)
> {
> long allowed;
>
> - /*
> - * A transient decrease in the value is unlikely, so no need
> - * READ_ONCE() for vm_committed_as.count.
> - */
> - VM_WARN_ONCE(data_race(percpu_counter_read(&vm_committed_as) <
> - -(s64)vm_committed_as_batch * num_online_cpus()),
> - "memory commitment underflow");
> -
> vm_acct_memory(pages);
>
> /*
> --
> 2.7.4
>
