On 02/25/2016 02:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 25-02-16 13:36:11, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
- 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((gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));
spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
page = NULL;
Hmm, even the reduced text (and the WARN_ON in the first place) sounds
IMHO discouraging enough to make people think that opencoding a loop
around such allocations is a good workaround. Yeah, we have a
better/more thorough explanation around the __GFP_NOFAIL definition, but
the WARN_ON will point people here.
--
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>