Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/ttm: Don't spam the log on buffer object backing store allocation failure

["Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 2026-03-02 at 10:02 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 2/27/26 17:00, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > If the struct ttm_operation_ctx::gfp_retry_mayfail is true,
> > buffer object backing store allocation failures are expected to
> > silently fail with an error code to the caller. But currently an
> > elaborate warning is printed to the system log.
> > 
> > Don't spam the log in this way.
> 
> That was intentionally removed or never added because Simona
> absolutely didn't liked the gfp_retry_mayfail flag at that time.
> 
> In general I'm fine with this change since I think we have proved by
> now that the flag is useful, but that probably need more wider
> discussion.

Well for system memory it is a bit questionable to be honest, I think
mostly because even if we return an error, the OOM killer might be
invoked on an unrelated allocation immediately afterwards.

Still, even if the use of gfp_retry_mayfail can be discussed, I'm not
sure why an error here needs to be printed when there are a number of
other errors that are not printed or printed only on debug.

Thanks,
Thomas


> 
> Regards,
> Christian.
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> > index c0d95559197c..8fa9e09f6ee5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> > @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ static int __ttm_pool_alloc(struct ttm_pool
> > *pool, struct ttm_tt *tt,
> >  		gfp_flags |= __GFP_ZERO;
> >  
> >  	if (ctx->gfp_retry_mayfail)
> > -		gfp_flags |= __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL;
> > +		gfp_flags |= __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_NOWARN;
> >  
> >  	if (ttm_pool_uses_dma32(pool))
> >  		gfp_flags |= GFP_DMA32;