From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D13E9B340 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 09:39:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15D910E209; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 09:39:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="jX8pTZ5c"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.19]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E25E10E209; Mon, 2 Mar 2026 09:39:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1772444355; x=1803980355; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to: references:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=C/IKmReL6/AWqKgeho2zj5OurIYqVbDfsm4wmDu7IxE=; b=jX8pTZ5ceNTfDCs2HqLsq27hUAsLzo18KSaQGQliN5YGckhGqocVZ6eI YwtXT8m6EOS3+nHGJadJH86gdz6+g/Ga8Ji5BmcYdCS0tnJg/5zQ1efQ5 gpc/ms93NYsmgGzO18FT6DfHt7hgwAfXEgNMA1lkihuYOAl55mPR2YQ5k NC4mnBeyCjx8DcRGxEOaF6vKfmcysZGk0U4Tu7EupQCcwu80T7BtxI6Ce eve5s0hSjvZ8TeT5WT9w+Fc2Y3pVK8EkLVa+/sJszaLLl+S4Pp8x1ykcD 3dfowYmKh7MCqmnvZFh+mn3bc2KFwgipWFmWVDTeQYz4Ho7M3xo2RUGpS w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 6iGO/YCpSX6ZpFuEYk6xog== X-CSE-MsgGUID: al8o2ZuKRwu47QzRVxhKYQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11716"; a="73355650" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,319,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="73355650" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by orvoesa111.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Mar 2026 01:39:15 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: +WNCp4nyQ6iKBAsZT99AJA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: IEt66UKmR5WT9RZSU4uD/w== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,319,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="221752346" Received: from smoticic-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.245.244.81]) ([10.245.244.81]) by ORVIESA003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Mar 2026 01:39:12 -0800 Message-ID: <4e9ac4fe88f4b8aec161d4edb4b4f66e70554ec8.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/ttm: Don't spam the log on buffer object backing store allocation failure From: Thomas =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= To: Christian =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= , intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Matthew Brost , Matthew Auld , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 10:39:10 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20260227160012.82309-1-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> <20260227160012.82309-2-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Sweden AB, Registration Number: 556189-6027 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Xe graphics driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-xe" On Mon, 2026-03-02 at 10:02 +0100, Christian K=C3=B6nig wrote: > On 2/27/26 17:00, Thomas Hellstr=C3=B6m 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. > >=20 > > Don't spam the log in this way. >=20 > That was intentionally removed or never added because Simona > absolutely didn't liked the gfp_retry_mayfail flag at that time. >=20 > 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 >=20 > Regards, > Christian. >=20 > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstr=C3=B6m > > --- > > =C2=A0drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c | 2 +- > > =C2=A01 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >=20 > > 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, > > =C2=A0 gfp_flags |=3D __GFP_ZERO; > > =C2=A0 > > =C2=A0 if (ctx->gfp_retry_mayfail) > > - gfp_flags |=3D __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL; > > + gfp_flags |=3D __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_NOWARN; > > =C2=A0 > > =C2=A0 if (ttm_pool_uses_dma32(pool)) > > =C2=A0 gfp_flags |=3D GFP_DMA32;