Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC 02/26] mm, slub: allocate private object map for
 validate_slab_cache()
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
References: <20210524233946.20352-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20210524233946.20352-3-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20210525101742.GK30378@techsingularity.net>
 <aad15d62-23c0-9eeb-d61f-a214eb57fb19@suse.cz>
 <20210525113317.GM30378@techsingularity.net>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Message-ID: <2af1b781-cb88-9e37-9b94-921b7ab82949@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:37:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210525113317.GM30378@techsingularity.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/25/21 1:33 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 12:36:52PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> > Most callers of validate_slab_cache don't care about the return value
>> > except when the validate sysfs file is written. Should a simply
>> > informational message be displayed for -ENOMEM in case a writer to
>> > validate fails and it's not obvious it was because of an allocation
>> > failure?
>> 
>> he other callers are all in the effectively dead resiliency_test() code, which
>> has meanwhile been replaced in mmotm by kunit tests meanwhile. But it's true
>> those don't check the results either for now.
>> 
> 
> Ok.
> 
>> > It's a fairly minor concern so whether you add a message or not
>> 
>> I think I'll rather fix up the tests. Or do you mean that -ENOMEM for a sysfs
>> write is also not enough and there should be a dmesg explanation for that case?
>> 
> 
> I mean the -ENOMEM for a sysfs write. While it's very unlikely, it might
> would explain an unexpected write failure.

On second thought, a failed GFP_KERNEL allocation will already generate a
prominent warning, so an extra message looks arbitrary.