From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26E5F3B27F3; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 10:05:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784196312; cv=none; b=gsGeGKT2og6JPN+ZTP44lkTAQpya/u82oQi3YAr4rEvaldPzCkIu+5dN2FUOvYCjyPUMjL5hxdKwG/wp+Cj82eM2xCW4rkjj13KtZKX+R52+fAcaB+7HvzllqpkmCcXGaDtOUHpqPmRDodpYyqIBQUM4mzgRJDbpqF0gcdGF4wU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784196312; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RdoHU5m00yBlcM6/EwN3D1PKI/00v8/DGwGDdzgyR8k=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=CY4C3gnF8WXdS36ECsvneSIkGVPpvZUmZe3soQ+Sflvc8iAngn+mwqvq1RseB6LVhsUNCaWdb9NCsGLHYJl6RXUQmR7aATSjGub5c98UP2yowKYpMGQWFStkmqmfttgOeAxPX/H2bbzlWe+6CdbKGr5uDTYj+SNjeXRf5pnBNRQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ksnfh6eG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ksnfh6eG" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B7E41F00A3A; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 10:05:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784196310; bh=ff09r8WSJFJe3vIaHtpOtkrOMGaD3zvc3JToEJZ+6XQ=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=ksnfh6eGMevX1hWC4T7/Eb2TZ02zXHxAhXHRlawVmuWi3C2uvnH8H6mVIoo7xW3zd o4zRjtrLn69d9zS7wCrfhprrH41bbzWLuCJ2rmG1iVTuvUcsrmYPhpjTh+D6FDHhp/ Nx4wLJlwRbv/DGvrRosD5xSbrn5phGvuu6e7UrVTRQkpCE88jf0/FWpgDyHMcHbw7l txr3UJzp1SehQw72lbhdY105FdegbgiOYrLayDdsORxYJ3kRrrQSkT2rxDfSuwqIo0 JxLbYipwLzau+DJRxOO7MjchPjAmeZVQMUedL+5ornMq7W77HufZ0GHicmJ67lj8dN R1sfQSs6B84dA== Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:05:06 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: do not warn when doing greedy allocation in folio_alloc_greedy() Content-Language: en-US To: Christoph Hellwig , Qu Wenruo , Andrew Morton , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Brendan Jackman , Johannes Weiner , Zi Yan , Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: From: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" Autocrypt: addr=vbabka@kernel.org; keydata= xsFNBFZdmxYBEADsw/SiUSjB0dM+vSh95UkgcHjzEVBlby/Fg+g42O7LAEkCYXi/vvq31JTB KxRWDHX0R2tgpFDXHnzZcQywawu8eSq0LxzxFNYMvtB7sV1pxYwej2qx9B75qW2plBs+7+YB 87tMFA+u+L4Z5xAzIimfLD5EKC56kJ1CsXlM8S/LHcmdD9Ctkn3trYDNnat0eoAcfPIP2OZ+ 9oe9IF/R28zmh0ifLXyJQQz5ofdj4bPf8ecEW0rhcqHfTD8k4yK0xxt3xW+6Exqp9n9bydiy tcSAw/TahjW6yrA+6JhSBv1v2tIm+itQc073zjSX8OFL51qQVzRFr7H2UQG33lw2QrvHRXqD Ot7ViKam7v0Ho9wEWiQOOZlHItOOXFphWb2yq3nzrKe45oWoSgkxKb97MVsQ+q2SYjJRBBH4 8qKhphADYxkIP6yut/eaj9ImvRUZZRi0DTc8xfnvHGTjKbJzC2xpFcY0DQbZzuwsIZ8OPJCc LM4S7mT25NE5kUTG/TKQCk922vRdGVMoLA7dIQrgXnRXtyT61sg8PG4wcfOnuWf8577aXP1x 6mzw3/jh3F+oSBHb/GcLC7mvWreJifUL2gEdssGfXhGWBo6zLS3qhgtwjay0Jl+kza1lo+Cv BB2T79D4WGdDuVa4eOrQ02TxqGN7G0Biz5ZLRSFzQSQwLn8fbwARAQABzSNWbGFzdGltaWwg QmFia2EgPHZiYWJrYUBrZXJuZWwub3JnPsLBsAQTAQoAWhYhBKlA1DSZLC6OmRA9UCJPp+fM gqZkBQJqFFy6GxSAAAAAAAQADm1hbnUyLDIuNSsxLjEyLDIsMgIbAwUJGtCBUAULCQgHAwUV CgkICwUWAgMBAAIeBQIXgAAKCRAiT6fnzIKmZJIUEADFx/tREzUImHrEwVHeSvDFmA7tJysI UVrlvrM09E7GIuzphzv7jYmo8n3ANpCczLEVr4G0syYQdTigaZgv3+FQDIIzhKih1IHhu1Ei XHlywNWKnQxxQEUNi5Mwx43wQz5XVw9F1A7gtKBKNtfogO511hAbrzagrYajyQacEJ/+sfhZ 9Da8ltHIXD8pcYaHUfQgEusCgmEd9+KrUwrTbckFKmYq5chuE6yJ4J0EmWknL096jIE6CnzF FRslQ3B1UKDjxVsm1ZHfir5NeWszLkTvGFsddFaWTgh8UycESG6VQzKXjjewXu2pG7YQYRpj QKm1W5X2TkwWkXRBZTmfmbhxIUMh3+zf5wQ463rSmDN/8v81tdqBtAW6rH/kzg1GvkaTHXn0 507yEHFzBksk2viAuIxxr7km8+/KARYLIdGtx30EG8cKzAUZOK6WqxtNCsXUJNrVE8CWrCaD icoNu7Fs1c5hmPHdSTnU48ce67449DdnO4neLSNhRiGlMHJgfJUmgrxu/hcYeOZ3haWmEQ2w uW1Mh01OHi8QZHCEyAbABrPs9GUgccc/4eYXX9hIgxfSkYzn8f+8NuIFPWl/0uTvjgqU29FQ SbzOLxHq9439Ox40G5mS5eZXRGxITYR+6TXvRGI6P/264jvflnr/pDGUttaikU+0W+1uxgKH cmYbEc7ATQRbGTU1AQgAn0H6UrFiWcovkh6EXVcl+SeqyO6JHOPm+e9Wu0Vw+VIUvXZVUVVQ La1PQDUi6j00ChlcR66g9/V0sPIcSutacPKfdKYOBvzd4rlhL8rfrdEsQw5ApZxrA8kYZVMh FmBRKAa6wos25moTlMKpCWzTH84+WO5+ziCTsTUZASAToz3RdunTD+vQcHj0GqNTPAHK63sf bAB2I0BslZkXkY1RLb/YhuA6E7JyEd2pilZOrIuBGl/5q2qSakgnAVFWFBR/DO27JuAksYnq +aH8vI0xGvwn75KqSk4UzAkDzWSmO4ZHuahKtQgZNsMYV+PGayRBX9b9zbldzopoLBdqHc4n jQARAQABwsF8BBgBCgAmAhsMFiEEqUDUNJksLo6ZED1QIk+n58yCpmQFAmfIHFQFCRYU6J8A CgkQIk+n58yCpmS2PA//bqN1LfcotmArgElsa+0EGZSQlYgK48pm8WAeTXTngudP9IJ4SuKY HR5RNjHcBeqN+Me0zxRqYzRb8nGanHEkDyf4Im8DQM8d6vbyU+FcPmG4skud4kgS1zMHnlVd SXfSIwKC/hKgdHG8aBV7545Lz9X6Iohea+94wneD0aw/hqF+QWewGZhWJriWAZtvEkzNjQOi 4U9F/trLten/x7bpphDSnDMKJtITbtzATT1Dq7o7VpIUK1nCTQALMuMjKCdi8OdU/+V+R3O4 0PXWvX8qrvqYapVbZ+9KqT74FsuB0Ya9uXwgBF2Q6cRuETZk5vqaqKxzqoQZCO8AOz/58j6O 2RHNy/mZEN+7tJ5Tsq42zVJ4jxsT8b9YplavCMsnBgDeRWhcbYhCyttoL7nYISyWg4kQYZ/P wIV3OuNv2f8iKYsxNsRuClOAF82+gvqOy1/1pprFjy8uo2pkoOrb63aOP3vO5VHnRKgra6dq NcaZ+c6J4H+nEJGi2SkHAUJz5oBzuThvPudLvPA/SK8sKoM01IRxSihev/S/5WLazXB1PGem OCbvzC1IjWJJraxiDJ5IygokapUa2RP7+WBR22skQ3SSl6G107QgWKSyTOGWEaRmV53vxQLV jXuCmzSSasTL60zq5yGrT4/DYQVSNEUiUbG4pYekxJujNeEDkUlky0Y= In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7/16/26 11:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 06:37:39PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> while (*size > minsize) { >> - folio = folio_alloc(gfp | __GFP_NORETRY, get_order(*size)); >> + folio = folio_alloc(gfp | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN, >> + get_order(*size)); > > I though I read somewhere that we now don't have to specify > __GFP_NOWARN when using __GFP_NORETRY, but a quick dive into the page > allocator suggest that no such thing exists. There was a change a while ago that added __GFP_NOWARN to GFP_NOWAIT, maybe that's what you read about? > But can we make it happen? Having to specify __GFP_NOWARN when the > caller clearly indicated that failure is perfectly fine using > __GFP_NORETRY is silly. The same probably applies to > __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL. It makes sense to me. The risk of missing some useful warning due to a coding error (conjuring up an unexpected __GFP_NORETRY/__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL in whatever way and then silently failing) is probably low here and it makes the API better.