Re: [PATCH] vmalloc: add warning in __vmalloc

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed May 02 2012 - 15:46:09 EST


On Wed, 2 May 2012 13:28:09 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Now there are several places to use __vmalloc with GFP_ATOMIC,
> GFP_NOIO, GFP_NOFS but unfortunately __vmalloc calls map_vm_area
> which calls alloc_pages with GFP_KERNEL to allocate page tables.
> It means it's possible to happen deadlock.
> I don't know why it doesn't have reported until now.
>
> Firstly, I tried passing gfp_t to lower functions to support __vmalloc
> with such flags but other mm guys don't want and decided that
> all of caller should be fixed.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=133517143616544&w=2
>
> To begin with, let's listen other's opinion whether they can fix it
> by other approach without calling __vmalloc with such flags.
>
> So this patch adds warning in __vmalloc_node_range to detect it and
> to be fixed hopely. __vmalloc_node_range isn't random chocie because
> all caller which has gfp_mask of map_vm_area use it through __vmalloc_area_node.
> And __vmalloc_area_node is current static function and is called by only
> __vmalloc_node_range. So warning in __vmalloc_node_range would cover all
> vmalloc functions which have gfp_t argument.
>
> I Cced related maintainers.
> If I miss someone, please Cced them.
>
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -1648,6 +1648,10 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned long align,
> void *addr;
> unsigned long real_size = size;
>
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) ||
> + !(gfp_mask & __GFP_IO) ||
> + !(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS));
> +
> size = PAGE_ALIGN(size);
> if (!size || (size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > totalram_pages)
> goto fail;

Well. What are we actually doing here? Causing the kernel to spew a
warning due to known-buggy callsites, so that users will report the
warnings, eventually goading maintainers into fixing their stuff.

This isn't very efficient :(

It would be better to fix that stuff first, then add the warning to
prevent reoccurrences. Yes, maintainers are very naughty and probably
do need cattle prods^W^W warnings to motivate them to fix stuff, but we
should first make an effort to get these things fixed without
irritating and alarming our users.

Where are these offending callsites?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/