Re: [patch] ipv4: don't warn about skb ack allocation failures

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> > ipv4: don't warn about skb ack allocation failures
> > 
> > tcp_send_ack() will recover from alloc_skb() allocation failures, so avoid 
> > emitting warnings.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > @@ -2442,7 +2442,7 @@ void tcp_send_ack(struct sock *sk)
> >  	 * tcp_transmit_skb() will set the ownership to this
> >  	 * sock.
> >  	 */
> > -	buff = alloc_skb(MAX_TCP_HEADER, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > +	buff = alloc_skb(MAX_TCP_HEADER, GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
> >  	if (buff == NULL) {
> >  		inet_csk_schedule_ack(sk);
> >  		inet_csk(sk)->icsk_ack.ato = TCP_ATO_MIN;
> 
> I count more than 800 GFP_ATOMIC allocations in net/ tree.
> 
> Most (if not all) of them can recover in case of failures.
> 
> Should we add __GFP_NOWARN to all of them ?
> 

Yes, if they are recoverable without any side effects.  Otherwise, they 
will continue to emit page allocation failure messages which cause users 
to waste their time when they recognize a problem of an unknown 
seriousness level in both reporting the issue and looking for resulting 
corruption.  The __GFP_NOWARN annotation suppresses such warnings for 
those very reasons.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/