From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] remove __must_check for res_counter_charge_nofail() Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:02:28 +0900 Message-ID: <4FB19D14.7080208@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <4FACDED0.3020400@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FACE184.6020307@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120514200925.GH2366@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120514200925.GH2366-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Tejun Heo Cc: "linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org" , "cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Frederic Weisbecker , Han Ying , Glauber Costa , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Andrew Morton , Hiroyuki Kamezawa , Linux Kernel (2012/05/15 5:09), Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 06:53:08PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> I picked this up from Costa's slub memcg series. For fixing added warning >> by patch 4. >> == >> From: Glauber Costa >> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] remove __must_check for res_counter_charge_nofail() >> >> Since we will succeed with the allocation no matter what, there >> isn't the need to use __must_check with it. It can very well >> be optional. >> >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa >> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > For 3-6, > > Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo > > Thanks a lot for doing this. This doesn't solve all the failure paths > tho. ie. what about -EINTR failures from lock contention? > pre_destroy() would probably need delay and retry logic with > WARN_ON_ONCE() on !-EINTR failures. > Yes, I'll do more work. I tend to split series, sorry. Thanks, -Kame From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx195.postini.com [74.125.245.195]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDFA46B0083 for ; Mon, 14 May 2012 20:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DDB3EE0C0 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 09:04:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF9E45DEAD for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 09:04:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B255345DEB3 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 09:04:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01461DB8046 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 09:04:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.147]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F841DB8040 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 09:04:35 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4FB19D14.7080208@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:02:28 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] remove __must_check for res_counter_charge_nofail() References: <4FACDED0.3020400@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FACE184.6020307@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120514200925.GH2366@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20120514200925.GH2366@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Frederic Weisbecker , Han Ying , Glauber Costa , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Andrew Morton , Hiroyuki Kamezawa , Linux Kernel (2012/05/15 5:09), Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 06:53:08PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> I picked this up from Costa's slub memcg series. For fixing added warning >> by patch 4. >> == >> From: Glauber Costa >> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] remove __must_check for res_counter_charge_nofail() >> >> Since we will succeed with the allocation no matter what, there >> isn't the need to use __must_check with it. It can very well >> be optional. >> >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa >> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > For 3-6, > > Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo > > Thanks a lot for doing this. This doesn't solve all the failure paths > tho. ie. what about -EINTR failures from lock contention? > pre_destroy() would probably need delay and retry logic with > WARN_ON_ONCE() on !-EINTR failures. > Yes, I'll do more work. I tend to split series, sorry. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932760Ab2EOAEj (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2012 20:04:39 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:43190 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757855Ab2EOAEh (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2012 20:04:37 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v1.7.4 Message-ID: <4FB19D14.7080208@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:02:28 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Frederic Weisbecker , Han Ying , Glauber Costa , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Andrew Morton , Hiroyuki Kamezawa , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] remove __must_check for res_counter_charge_nofail() References: <4FACDED0.3020400@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FACE184.6020307@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120514200925.GH2366@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20120514200925.GH2366@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (2012/05/15 5:09), Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 06:53:08PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> I picked this up from Costa's slub memcg series. For fixing added warning >> by patch 4. >> == >> From: Glauber Costa >> Subject: [PATCH 6/6] remove __must_check for res_counter_charge_nofail() >> >> Since we will succeed with the allocation no matter what, there >> isn't the need to use __must_check with it. It can very well >> be optional. >> >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa >> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > For 3-6, > > Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo > > Thanks a lot for doing this. This doesn't solve all the failure paths > tho. ie. what about -EINTR failures from lock contention? > pre_destroy() would probably need delay and retry logic with > WARN_ON_ONCE() on !-EINTR failures. > Yes, I'll do more work. I tend to split series, sorry. Thanks, -Kame