diff options
| author | Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> | 2018-07-13 16:59:16 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2018-07-14 11:11:10 -0700 |
| commit | e3d301cae0092062cbcd6b4e7ceebbab9d87e263 (patch) | |
| tree | 8188c629fd2a35153e10a64bb8ab827e50486b27 /mm | |
| parent | 24962af7e1041b7e50c1bc71d8d10dc678c556b5 (diff) | |
| download | linux-e3d301cae0092062cbcd6b4e7ceebbab9d87e263.tar.gz linux-e3d301cae0092062cbcd6b4e7ceebbab9d87e263.tar.bz2 linux-e3d301cae0092062cbcd6b4e7ceebbab9d87e263.zip | |
mm/memblock.c: do not complain about top-down allocations for !MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
Mike Rapoport is converting architectures from bootmem to nobootmem
allocator. While doing so for m68k Geert has noticed that he gets a
scary looking warning:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:230
memblock_find_in_range_node+0x11c/0x1be
memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotunplug may be affected
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted
4.18.0-rc3-atari-01343-gf2fb5f2e09a97a3c-dirty #7
Call Trace: __warn+0xa8/0xc2
kernel_pg_dir+0x0/0x1000
netdev_lower_get_next+0x2/0x22
warn_slowpath_fmt+0x2e/0x36
memblock_find_in_range_node+0x11c/0x1be
memblock_find_in_range_node+0x11c/0x1be
memblock_find_in_range_node+0x0/0x1be
vprintk_func+0x66/0x6e
memblock_virt_alloc_internal+0xd0/0x156
netdev_lower_get_next+0x2/0x22
netdev_lower_get_next+0x2/0x22
kernel_pg_dir+0x0/0x1000
memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_nopanic+0x58/0x7a
netdev_lower_get_next+0x2/0x22
kernel_pg_dir+0x0/0x1000
kernel_pg_dir+0x0/0x1000
EXPTBL+0x234/0x400
EXPTBL+0x234/0x400
alloc_node_mem_map+0x4a/0x66
netdev_lower_get_next+0x2/0x22
free_area_init_node+0xe2/0x29e
EXPTBL+0x234/0x400
paging_init+0x430/0x462
kernel_pg_dir+0x0/0x1000
printk+0x0/0x1a
EXPTBL+0x234/0x400
setup_arch+0x1b8/0x22c
start_kernel+0x4a/0x40a
_sinittext+0x344/0x9e8
The warning is basically saying that a top-down allocation can break
memory hotremove because memblock allocation is not movable. But m68k
doesn't even support MEMORY_HOTREMOVE so there is no point to warn about
it.
Make the warning conditional only to configurations that care.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180706061750.GH32658@dhcp22.suse.cz
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Sam Creasey <sammy@sammy.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'mm')
| -rw-r--r-- | mm/memblock.c | 3 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index 03d48d8835ba..11e46f83e1ad 100644 --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c @@ -227,7 +227,8 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t size, * so we use WARN_ONCE() here to see the stack trace if * fail happens. */ - WARN_ONCE(1, "memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotunplug may be affected\n"); + WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE), + "memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotremove may be affected\n"); } return __memblock_find_range_top_down(start, end, size, align, nid, |