From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
647757197cd3 ("mm: clarify __GFP_NOFAIL deprecation status") was
incomplete and didn't remove the comment about __GFP_NOFAIL being
deprecated in buffered_rmqueue. Let's get rid of this leftover
but keep the WARN_ON_ONCE for order > 1 because we should really
discourage from using __GFP_NOFAIL with higher order allocations
because those are just too subtle.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
---
Hi,
this popped out when discussing another patch http://lkml.kernel.org/r/56CEC568.6080809@xxxxxxxx
so I think it is worth removing the comment.
mm/page_alloc.c | 18 +++++-------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 1993894b4219..109d975a7172 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -2347,19 +2347,11 @@ struct page *buffered_rmqueue(struct zone *preferred_zone,
list_del(&page->lru);
pcp->count--;
} else {
- if (unlikely(gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
- /*
- * __GFP_NOFAIL is not to be used in new code.
- *
- * All __GFP_NOFAIL callers should be fixed so that they
- * properly detect and handle allocation failures.
- *
- * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
- * allocate greater than order-1 page units with
- * __GFP_NOFAIL.
- */
- WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 1);
- }
+ /*
+ * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
+ * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
+ */
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(unlikely(gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));
spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
page = NULL;
--
2.7.0
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>