Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755357AbbLAHXi (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 02:23:38 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:34605 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751331AbbLAHXh (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 02:23:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 16:24:38 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Kyeongdon Kim Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc() Message-ID: <20151201072438.GC894@swordfish> References: <1448597449-17579-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20151201051652.GA894@swordfish> <565D3FCD.3060503@lge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565D3FCD.3060503@lge.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2048 Lines: 61 On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: > Let me give you a simple code of it. > > @test #1 (previous shared log) > kmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > __vmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > // can find failure both > > @test #2 (previous shared log) > kmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > __vmalloc(f) > // removed '__GFP_NOMEMALLOC' from vmalloc() only, and cannot find > failure from vmalloc() > > And like you said, I made a quick check to see a failure about kmalloc() > without the flag : > > @test #3 > kmalloc(f) > __vmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > // removed '__GFP_NOMEMALLOC' from zmalloc() only > // and cannot find failure from zmalloc(), but in this case, it's hard > to find failure from vmalloc() because of already allocation mostly from > zsmalloc() > I assume, that "zsmalloc" and "zmalloc" here are meant to be "kzalloc (kmalloc)" -ss > log message (test #3) : > <4>[ 186.763605][1] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002030000 > <4>[ 186.776652][1] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc0020f0000 > <4>[ 186.811423][1] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002108000 > <4>[ 186.816744][1] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002000000 > <4>[ 186.816796][1] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002008000 > > @test #4 > kmalloc(f) > __vmalloc(f) > // cannot find failure both until now > > log message (test #4) : > <4>[ 641.440468][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002190000 > > <4>[ 922.182980][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002208000 > > <4>[ 923.197593][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc002020000 > > <4>[ 939.813499][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffffffc0020a0000 > > So,is there another problem if we remove the flag from both sides? > > Thanks, > Kyeongdon Kim > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/