Re: [patch] ipv4: don't warn about skb ack allocation failures

From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Wed Jun 17 2009 - 16:53:40 EST


David Rientjes a écrit :
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>>> ipv4: don't warn about skb ack allocation failures
>>>
>>> tcp_send_ack() will recover from alloc_skb() allocation failures, so avoid
>>> emitting warnings.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
>>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
>>> @@ -2442,7 +2442,7 @@ void tcp_send_ack(struct sock *sk)
>>> * tcp_transmit_skb() will set the ownership to this
>>> * sock.
>>> */
>>> - buff = alloc_skb(MAX_TCP_HEADER, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>> + buff = alloc_skb(MAX_TCP_HEADER, GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
>>> if (buff == NULL) {
>>> inet_csk_schedule_ack(sk);
>>> inet_csk(sk)->icsk_ack.ato = TCP_ATO_MIN;
>> I count more than 800 GFP_ATOMIC allocations in net/ tree.
>>
>> Most (if not all) of them can recover in case of failures.
>>
>> Should we add __GFP_NOWARN to all of them ?
>>
>
> Yes, if they are recoverable without any side effects. Otherwise, they
> will continue to emit page allocation failure messages which cause users
> to waste their time when they recognize a problem of an unknown
> seriousness level in both reporting the issue and looking for resulting
> corruption. The __GFP_NOWARN annotation suppresses such warnings for
> those very reasons.

Then why emit the warning at first place ?

Once we patch all call sites to use GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN, I bet 99%
GFP_ATOMIC allocations in kernel will use it, so we go back to silent mode.

If a GFP_ATOMIC call site *cannot* use __GFP_NOWARN, it will either :

- call panic()
- crash with a nice stack trace because caller was not aware NULL could be
returned by kmalloc()


Maybe GFP_ATOMIC should include __GFP_NOWARN

#define GFP_ATOMIC (__GFP_HIGH)
->
#define GFP_ATOMIC (__GFP_HIGH | __GFP_NOWARN)

--
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/