On 01/24/2017 12:56 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:16:12 +0100 Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> The __alloc_pages_slowpath() has gotten rather complex and gcc
>> is no longer able to follow the gotos and prove that the
>> alloc_flags variable is initialized at the time it is used:
>>
>> mm/page_alloc.c: In function '__alloc_pages_slowpath':
>> mm/page_alloc.c:3565:15: error: 'alloc_flags' may be used uninitialized in 
>> this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>>
>> To be honest, I can't figure that out either, maybe it is or
>> maybe not, but moving the existing initialization up a little
>> higher looks safe and makes it obvious to both me and gcc that
>> the initialization comes before the first use.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -3591,6 +3591,13 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int 
>> order,
>>                              (__GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)))
>>              gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_ATOMIC;
>>  
>> +    /*
>> +     * The fast path uses conservative alloc_flags to succeed only until
>> +     * kswapd needs to be woken up, and to avoid the cost of setting up
>> +     * alloc_flags precisely. So we do that now.
>> +     */
>> +    alloc_flags = gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_mask);
>> +
>>  retry_cpuset:
>>      compaction_retries = 0;
>>      no_progress_loops = 0;
>> @@ -3607,14 +3614,6 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int 
>> order,
>>      if (!ac->preferred_zoneref->zone)
>>              goto nopage;
>>  
>> -
>> -    /*
>> -     * The fast path uses conservative alloc_flags to succeed only until
>> -     * kswapd needs to be woken up, and to avoid the cost of setting up
>> -     * alloc_flags precisely. So we do that now.
>> -     */
>> -    alloc_flags = gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_mask);
>> -
>>      if (gfp_mask & __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM)
>>              wake_all_kswapds(order, ac);
> 
> hm.  But we later do
> 
>       if (gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed(gfp_mask))
>               alloc_flags = ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS;
> 
>       ...
>       if (read_mems_allowed_retry(cpuset_mems_cookie))
>               goto retry_cpuset;
> 
> so with your patch there's a path where we can rerun everything with
> alloc_flags == ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS.  That's changed behaviour.

Right.

> When I saw the test robot warning I did this, which I think preserves
> behaviour?

Yes, that's cleaner. Thanks.

> --- 
> a/mm/page_alloc.c~mm-consolidate-gfp_nofail-checks-in-the-allocator-slowpath-fix
> +++ a/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3577,6 +3577,14 @@ retry_cpuset:
>       no_progress_loops = 0;
>       compact_priority = DEF_COMPACT_PRIORITY;
>       cpuset_mems_cookie = read_mems_allowed_begin();
> +
> +     /*
> +      * The fast path uses conservative alloc_flags to succeed only until
> +      * kswapd needs to be woken up, and to avoid the cost of setting up
> +      * alloc_flags precisely. So we do that now.
> +      */
> +     alloc_flags = gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_mask);
> +
>       /*
>        * We need to recalculate the starting point for the zonelist iterator
>        * because we might have used different nodemask in the fast path, or
> @@ -3588,14 +3596,6 @@ retry_cpuset:
>       if (!ac->preferred_zoneref->zone)
>               goto nopage;
>  
> -
> -     /*
> -      * The fast path uses conservative alloc_flags to succeed only until
> -      * kswapd needs to be woken up, and to avoid the cost of setting up
> -      * alloc_flags precisely. So we do that now.
> -      */
> -     alloc_flags = gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_mask);
> -
>       if (gfp_mask & __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM)
>               wake_all_kswapds(order, ac);
>  
> _
> 

Reply via email to