On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:22:02AM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 08:30:52PM -0800, Sultan Alsawaf wrote: > > From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > [snip] > > > @@ -4640,9 +4647,12 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > > goto retry; > > } > > fail: > > - warn_alloc(gfp_mask, ac->nodemask, > > - "page allocation failure: order:%u", order); > > got_pg: > > I have no insight into if this is masking a deeper problem or if this fixes > something but doesn't the above result in 'fail' and 'got_pg' being the same > label? > > Ira > > > + if (woke_kswapd) > > + atomic_dec(&pgdat->kswapd_waiters); > > + if (!page) > > + warn_alloc(gfp_mask, ac->nodemask, > > + "page allocation failure: order:%u", order); > > return page; > > } > > [snip] Yes,. This was to reduce the patch delta for the initial submission so it's clearer what's going on; it can be altered of course to coalesce the labels into a single one. I typically produce my patches to upstream components to be as uninvasive as possible to aid in backporting and forward porting in case it's rejected and I want to keep it for myself. Sultan
