From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754667Ab1HYUr1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:47:27 -0400 Received: from wondertoys-mx.wondertoys.net ([206.117.179.246]:32787 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754387Ab1HYUr0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:47:26 -0400 Subject: RFC: Remove unnecessary / duplicate OOM printks From: Joe Perches To: LKML Cc: Eric Dumazet , netdev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:47:23 -0700 Message-ID: <1314305243.4637.10.camel@Joe-Laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org There are many thousands of printks for OOM conditions in kernel sources. These are almost always a duplication of a generic OOM message from the mm subsystem. The biggest difference between the generic OOM and the specific OOM uses is that most of the specific messages are emitted at KERN_ERR but the generic message is at KERN_WARNING. Many KB of code/text could be removed from the kernel. Removal can be gradual and done by subsystem. Some kmalloc's that are followed on failure by vmalloc may need to add GFP_NOWARN. Does anyone really believe the per site failure messages are useful or really want them to keep them?