On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 05:12:32PM +0800, Hailong Liu wrote:
> On Thu, 15. Aug 22:07, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 11:41:42 +0200 Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Acked-by: Barry Song <baohua@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > because we already have a fallback here:
> > > > >
> > > > > void *__vmalloc_node_range_noprof :
> > > > >
> > > > > fail:
> > > > > if (shift > PAGE_SHIFT) {
> > > > > shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > > > align = real_align;
> > > > > size = real_size;
> > > > > goto again;
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > This really deserves a comment because this is not really clear at all.
> > > > The code is also fragile and it would benefit from some re-org.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the fix.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > I agree. This is only clear for people who know the code. A "fallback"
> > > to order-0 should be commented.
> >
> > It's been a week. Could someone please propose a fixup patch to add
> > this comment?
>
> Hi Andrew:
>
> Do you mean that I need to send a v2 patch with the the comments included?
>
It is better to post v2.
But before, could you please comment on:
in case of order-0, bulk path may easily fail and fallback to the single
page allocator. If an request is marked as NO_FAIL, i am talking about
order-0 request, your change breaks GFP_NOFAIL for !order.
Am i missing something obvious?
Thanks!
--
Uladzsislau Rezki
