On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 7:58 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat 31-08-24 08:28:23, Barry Song wrote: > > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx> > > > > Three points for this change: > > > > 1. We should consolidate all warnings in one place. Currently, the > > order > 1 warning is in the hotpath, while others are in less > > likely scenarios. Moving all warnings to the slowpath will reduce > > the overhead for order > 1 and increase the visibility of other > > warnings. > > > > 2. We currently have two warnings for order: one for order > 1 in > > the hotpath and another for order > costly_order in the laziest > > path. I suggest standardizing on order > 1 since it’s been in > > use for a long time. > > > > 3. We don't need to check for __GFP_NOWARN in this case. __GFP_NOWARN > > is meant to suppress allocation failure reports, but here we're > > dealing with bug detection, not allocation failures. So replace > > WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP by WARN_ON_ONCE. > > > > Suggested-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > Updating the doc about order > 1 sounds like it would still fall into > the scope of this patch. I don not think we absolutely have to document > each unsupported gfp flags combination for GFP_NOFAIL but the order is a > good addition with a note that kvmalloc should be used instead in such a > case. Hi Andrew, If there are no objections from Michal and David, could you please squash the following:
