On Wed 12-04-17 21:14:10, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:35:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > OK, I see. That is a rather weird feature and the naming is more than > > > surprising. But put that aside. Then it means that the check should be > > > pulled out to > > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > index 6632256ef170..1e5f3b5cdb87 100644 > > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > @@ -3941,7 +3941,8 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > > > goto retry; > > > } > > > fail: > > > - warn_alloc(gfp_mask, ac->nodemask, > > > + if (!debug_guardpage_minorder()) > > > + warn_alloc(gfp_mask, ac->nodemask, > > > "page allocation failure: order:%u", order); > > > got_pg: > > > return page; > > > > Looks good to me assuming it will be applied on top of Tetsuo's patch. > > > > Reviewed-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > There are two warn_alloc() usages in mm/vmalloc.c which the check should be > pulled out. Do we actually care about vmalloc for this? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>
