[patch 1/10] suppress allocation warnings for radix-tree allocations

[patch 1/10] suppress allocation warnings for radix-tree allocations

[Andrew Morton]

The recently-added page allocation failure warning generates a lot of
noise due to radix-tree node allocation failures.  Those messages are
not interesting.

But I think the warning is otherwise useful - "I got an allocation
failure and then it crashed" is better than "it crashed".

The patch suppresses the message for ratnode allocation failures.



=====================================

--- 2.5.13/mm/vmscan.c~radix-tree-warning	Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
+++ 2.5.13-akpm/mm/vmscan.c	Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ swap_out_add_to_swap_cache(struct page *
 	int ret;
 
 	current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
+	current->flags |= PF_RADIX_TREE;
 	ret = add_to_swap_cache(page, entry);
 	current->flags = flags;
 	return ret;
--- 2.5.13/mm/page_alloc.c~radix-tree-warning	Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
+++ 2.5.13-akpm/mm/page_alloc.c	Sun May  5 13:32:36 2002
@@ -396,8 +396,11 @@ rebalance:
 				return page;
 		}
 nopage:
-		printk("%s: page allocation failure. order:%d, mode:0x%x\n",
-			current->comm, order, gfp_mask);
+		if (!(current->flags & PF_RADIX_TREE)) {
+			printk("%s: page allocation failure."
+				" order:%d, mode:0x%x\n",
+				current->comm, order, gfp_mask);
+		}
 		return NULL;
 	}
 
--- 2.5.13/include/linux/sched.h~radix-tree-warning	Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
+++ 2.5.13-akpm/include/linux/sched.h	Sun May  5 13:32:15 2002
@@ -371,6 +371,7 @@ do { if (atomic_dec_and_test(&(tsk)->usa
 #define PF_MEMDIE	0x00001000	/* Killed for out-of-memory */
 #define PF_FREE_PAGES	0x00002000	/* per process page freeing */
 #define PF_FLUSHER	0x00004000	/* responsible for disk writeback */
+#define PF_RADIX_TREE	0x00008000	/* debug: performing radix tree alloc */
 
 /*
  * Ptrace flags

-

Re: [patch 1/10] suppress allocation warnings for radix-tree allocations

[Daniel Phillips]

On Sunday 05 May 2002 22:53, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The recently-added page allocation failure warning generates a lot of
> noise due to radix-tree node allocation failures.  Those messages are
> not interesting.
> 
> But I think the warning is otherwise useful - "I got an allocation
> failure and then it crashed" is better than "it crashed".
> 
> The patch suppresses the message for ratnode allocation failures.
> 
> =====================================
> 
> --- 2.5.13/mm/vmscan.c~radix-tree-warning	Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
> +++ 2.5.13-akpm/mm/vmscan.c	Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ swap_out_add_to_swap_cache(struct page *
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
> +	current->flags |= PF_RADIX_TREE;


Isn't that really 'PF_NO_WARN_ALLOC'?

-- 
Daniel

Re: [patch 1/10] suppress allocation warnings for radix-tree allocations

[Andrew Morton]

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> On Sunday 05 May 2002 22:53, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The recently-added page allocation failure warning generates a lot of
> > noise due to radix-tree node allocation failures.  Those messages are
> > not interesting.
> >
> > But I think the warning is otherwise useful - "I got an allocation
> > failure and then it crashed" is better than "it crashed".
> >
> > The patch suppresses the message for ratnode allocation failures.
> >
> > =====================================
> >
> > --- 2.5.13/mm/vmscan.c~radix-tree-warning     Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
> > +++ 2.5.13-akpm/mm/vmscan.c   Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
> > @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ swap_out_add_to_swap_cache(struct page *
> >       int ret;
> >
> >       current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
> > +     current->flags |= PF_RADIX_TREE;
> 
> Isn't that really 'PF_NO_WARN_ALLOC'?
> 

Yup, that would make more sense.

Or __GFP_I_DONT_REALLY_CARE ;)

-

Re: [patch 1/10] suppress allocation warnings for radix-tree allocations

[Anton Altaparmakov]

At 23:06 05/05/02, Andrew Morton wrote:
>Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday 05 May 2002 22:53, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > The recently-added page allocation failure warning generates a lot of
> > > noise due to radix-tree node allocation failures.  Those messages are
> > > not interesting.
> > >
> > > But I think the warning is otherwise useful - "I got an allocation
> > > failure and then it crashed" is better than "it crashed".
> > >
> > > The patch suppresses the message for ratnode allocation failures.
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > >
> > > --- 2.5.13/mm/vmscan.c~radix-tree-warning     Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
> > > +++ 2.5.13-akpm/mm/vmscan.c   Sun May  5 13:31:59 2002
> > > @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ swap_out_add_to_swap_cache(struct page *
> > >       int ret;
> > >
> > >       current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
> > > +     current->flags |= PF_RADIX_TREE;
> >
> > Isn't that really 'PF_NO_WARN_ALLOC'?
> >
>
>Yup, that would make more sense.
>
>Or __GFP_I_DONT_REALLY_CARE ;)

Surely this is only a temporary flag which together with the warning 
message will disappear later on so debating about its name is, err, silly? 
(((-;

Anton


-- 
   "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
-- 
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/