From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755606Ab1HYWFD (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:05:03 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:60251 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755525Ab1HYWFB (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:05:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:04:56 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Joe Perches Cc: LKML , Eric Dumazet , netdev Subject: Re: RFC: Remove unnecessary / duplicate OOM printks Message-Id: <20110825150456.fc8720c4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1314305243.4637.10.camel@Joe-Laptop> References: <1314305243.4637.10.camel@Joe-Laptop> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:47:23 -0700 Joe Perches wrote: > There are many thousands of printks for OOM conditions > in kernel sources. > > These are almost always a duplication of a generic > OOM message from the mm subsystem. > > The biggest difference between the generic OOM and > the specific OOM uses is that most of the specific > messages are emitted at KERN_ERR but the generic > message is at KERN_WARNING. > > Many KB of code/text could be removed from the kernel. > > Removal can be gradual and done by subsystem. > > Some kmalloc's that are followed on failure by vmalloc > may need to add GFP_NOWARN. > > Does anyone really believe the per site failure > messages are useful or really want them to keep them? > Kill 'em.