On Thu 22-08-24 06:59:08, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 at 20:41, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > One potential approach could be to rename GFP_NOFAIL to > > GFP_NOFAIL_FOR_SMALL_ALLOC, specifically for smaller allocations, and > > to clear this flag for larger allocations. > > Yes, that sounds like a good way to make sure people don't blame the > MM layer when they themselves were the cause of problems. The reality disagrees because there is a real demand for real GFP_NOFAIL semantic. By that I do not mean arbitrary requests and sure GFP_NOFAIL for higher orders is really hard to achieve but kvmalloc GFP_NOFAIL for anything larger than PAGE_SIZE is doable without a considerable burden on the MM end. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
