Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: sync allocation and memcg charge gfp flags for THP

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 03/18/2015 04:59 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 18-03-15 16:40:34, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 03/18/2015 04:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 18-03-15 15:34:50, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > On 03/16/2015 03:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > @@ -1080,6 +1080,7 @@ int do_huge_pmd_wp_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > >   	unsigned long haddr;
> > > > >   	unsigned long mmun_start;	/* For mmu_notifiers */
> > > > >   	unsigned long mmun_end;		/* For mmu_notifiers */
> > > > > +	gfp_t huge_gfp = GFP_TRANSHUGE;	/* for allocation and charge */
> > > >
> > > > This value is actually never used. Is it here because the compiler emits a
> > > > spurious non-initialized value warning otherwise? It should be easy for it
> > > > to prove that setting new_page to something non-null implies initializing
> > > > huge_gfp (in the hunk below), and NULL new_page means it doesn't reach the
> > > > mem_cgroup_try_charge() call?
> > >
> > > No, I haven't tried to workaround the compiler. It just made the code
> > > more obvious to me. I can remove the initialization if you prefer, of
> > > course.
> >
> > Yeah IMHO it would be better to remove it, if possible. Leaving it has the
> > (albeit small) chance that future patch will again use the value in the code
> > before it's determined based on defrag setting.
>
> Wouldn't an uninitialized value be used in such a case?

Yeah, but then you should get a (correct) warning :)
--
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/