Hello, Sasha. 2012/12/28 Sasha Levin <sasha.le...@oracle.com>: > On 12/27/2012 06:04 PM, David Rientjes wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >>> That's exactly what happens with the patch. Note that in the current >>> upstream >>> version there are several slab checks scattered all over. >>> >>> In this case for example, I'm removing it from __alloc_bootmem_node(), but >>> the >>> first code line of__alloc_bootmem_node_nopanic() is: >>> >>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available())) >>> return kzalloc(size, GFP_NOWAIT); >>> >> >> You're only talking about mm/bootmem.c and not mm/nobootmem.c, and notice >> that __alloc_bootmem_node() does not call __alloc_bootmem_node_nopanic(), >> it calls ___alloc_bootmem_node_nopanic(). > > Holy cow, this is an underscore hell. > > > Thanks, > Sasha >
I have a different idea. How about removing fallback allocation in bootmem.c completely? I don't know why it is there exactly. But, warning for 'slab_is_available()' is there for a long time. So, most people who misuse fallback allocation change their code adequately. I think that removing fallback at this time is valid. Isn't it? Fallback allocation may cause possible bug. If someone free a memory from fallback allocation, it can't be handled properly. So, IMHO, at this time, we should remove fallback allocation in bootmem.c entirely. Please let me know what I misunderstand. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/