On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:56 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri 04-11-22 10:35:21, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > index ef4aea3b356e..308daafc4871 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> > @@ -227,7 +227,10 @@ static inline
> > struct folio *__folio_alloc_node(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order, int nid)
> > {
> > VM_BUG_ON(nid < 0 || nid >= MAX_NUMNODES);
> > - VM_WARN_ON((gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) && !node_online(nid));
> > + if((gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) && !node_online(nid)) {
>
> or maybe even better
> if ((gfp & (__GFP_THISNODE|__GFP_NOWARN) == __GFP_THISNODE|__GFP_NOWARN) && !node_online(nid))
>
> because it doesn't really make much sense to dump this information if
> the allocation failure is going to provide sufficient (and even more
> comprehensive) context for the failure. It looks more hairy but this can
> be hidden in a nice little helper shared between the two callers.
Thanks a lot for the suggestion, printing warning if the gfp flag
allows sounds like a good idea to me. Will adopt it. But the check
should look like:
if ((gfp & __GFP_THISNODE) && !(gfp & __GFP_NOWARN) && !node_online(nid))
>
> > + pr_warn("%pGg allocation from offline node %d\n", &gfp, nid);
> > + dump_stack();
> > + }
> >
> > return __folio_alloc(gfp, order, nid, NULL);
> > }
> > --
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
