Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Nov 2022 10:47:58 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: fix unexpected changes to {failslab|fail_page_alloc}.attr | From | Qi Zheng <> |
| |
On 2022/11/8 00:26, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 11:05:42PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: >> >> >> On 2022/11/7 20:42, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 11:31:09AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: >>> >>>> @@ -31,9 +33,9 @@ bool __should_failslab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags) >>>> return false; >>>> if (gfpflags & __GFP_NOWARN) >>>> - failslab.attr.no_warn = true; >>>> + flags |= FAULT_NOWARN; >>> >>> You should add a comment here about why this is required, to avoid >>> deadlocking printk >> >> I think this comment should be placed where __GFP_NOWARN is specified >> instead of here. What do you think? :) > > NOWARN is clear what it does, it is this specifically that is very > subtle about avoiding deadlock aginst allocations triggered by > printk/etc code.
Oh, maybe I understand your concern. Some people may think that this is just a print of fault injection information, not a warning. I'll add a comment explaining why in some cases there must be no printing.
Thanks, Qi
> > Jason
-- Thanks, Qi
| |