Hello, On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:50:12AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > You'd certainly _hope_ that atomic allocations either have fallbacks > > or are harmless if they fail, but I'd still rather see that > > __GFP_NOWARN just to make that very much explicit. > > A global change to GFP_NOWAIT would of course mean that we should audit its > users (there don't seem to be many), whether they are using it consciously > and should not rather be using GFP_ATOMIC. A while ago, I thought about something like, say, GFP_MAYBE which is combination of NOWAIT and NOWARN but couldn't really come up with scenarios where one would want to use NOWAIT w/o NOWARN. If an allocation is important enough to warn the user of its failure, it better be dipping into the atomic reserve pool; otherwise, it doesn't make sense to make noise. Maybe we can come up with a better name which signifies that this is likely to fail every now and then but I still think it'd be beneficial to make it quiet by default. Linus, do you still think NOWARN should be explicit? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>