On 8/11/20 12:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > My opinion is that the warning is too late to add at this stage. It > would have been much better if the user interface has provided a > reasonable feedback on how much the request was sucessful. But this > is not the case (except for few error cases) and we have to live with > the interface where the caller has to read the value after writing to > it. Lame but a reality. > > I have heard about people making an opportunistic attempt to grab as > many hugetlb pages as possible and they do expect the failure and scale > the request size down. I do not think those would appreciate warnings. > > That being said I would rather keep the existing behavior even though it > is suboptimal. It is just trivial to add the check in the userspace > without risking complains by other users. Besides the warning is not > really telling us much more than a subsequent read anyway. You are not > going to learn why the allocation has failed because that one is done > (intentionaly) as __GFP_NOWARN. > Thanks Michal. As previously stated, I do not have a strong opinion about this. Because of this, let's just leave things as they are and not add the message. It is pretty clear that a user needs to read the value after writing to determine if all pages were allocated. The log message would add little benefit to the end user. -- Mike Kravetz
