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 kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BD4C433EF for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 08:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 46DF08D0002; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:41:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 41DA88D0001; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:41:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2E5428D0002; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:41:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.26]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206EF8D0001 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 04:41:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86E821B3E for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 08:41:50 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79300409580.12.5F766BF Received: from mail-pj1-f48.google.com (mail-pj1-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E12C18000C for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 08:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f48.google.com with SMTP id mp11-20020a17090b190b00b001c79aa8fac4so914331pjb.0 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 01:41:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rwRSBUSEXA3FU34gTo5hg2hs3IWB6XODlZLxIewn3eE=; b=ecMHkjGuiBbhyGV8JLkyQK2ociRxD/0kaM5ciztGvXYXwWhhSRmWrSzdij4XKcmh+k 0dzxl9xeLie6Q72LgQBVQTawH70WWM6keTZ99EhtHFxXFU1sQLIx/v4Ki8K28DffuLHC lh3ooGHsfo3FiPPYx9BMku7xMdRuuGc3hUL/k= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=rwRSBUSEXA3FU34gTo5hg2hs3IWB6XODlZLxIewn3eE=; b=RCf0RT3ssYi4aKUn4MIk7/ilhvtbZqiq38RShe7dXjoZxYKHHx73qjTc89ibRbnKaY 2yMzVoj1I2iEOZVwT8ns0V29OKGBuitvA+Mpm2ucXgwkNupGmShjC6HPUhy7ly2CAwvI O5H3Bo1D/zZQP2p2Txm7v4ffe031Gqc4xNx1gsGER36n0KQ+I1Hb4hnE6IoG6QNmnUVh 59k/VyYouunHzH5Q9Pq21rMgWIBDF7EfC9n/8jcUE8oiiroz6X3tXqdwNBO/KiA4LVR4 qk+kpg961VO7+EZNB3h0J0pTQRAYN5m0ahEce0rPZC8lBjXCKsF0a2oakDIHEHmSm5da CHHw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533xqfyRt278nXQJiqVZYppYEgWVYxfezRAPZk+JyPqDu13B1zBe CcBZp0JVqg3YOnviJrfaQwzxAQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIp3XBSt2ygSCHL+Tg+EAz9v3I25lJmzsOMUSgz7ZKDrdINXYOsnUvVEkgWDq/yB3LCz/lPA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:930b:b0:1bf:ac1f:6585 with SMTP id p11-20020a17090a930b00b001bfac1f6585mr3763996pjo.88.1648629709315; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 01:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2401:fa00:8f:203:1719:a115:46dd:6b80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pj9-20020a17090b4f4900b001c744034e7csm5979133pjb.2.2022.03.30.01.41.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 30 Mar 2022 01:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 17:41:43 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Michal Hocko Cc: Jaewon Kim , minchan@kernel.org, ngupta@vflare.org, senozhatsky@chromium.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, s.suk@samsung.com, jaewon31.kim@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram_drv: add __GFP_NOWARN flag on call to zs_malloc Message-ID: References: <20220330052502.26072-1-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: imf06.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=chromium.org header.s=google header.b=ecMHkjGu; spf=pass (imf06.hostedemail.com: domain of senozhatsky@chromium.org designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=senozhatsky@chromium.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=chromium.org X-Stat-Signature: mkd69seqswmokdjnqh5tfwk9589935ex X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5E12C18000C X-HE-Tag: 1648629710-750186 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On (22/03/30 10:06), Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 30-03-22 14:25:02, Jaewon Kim wrote: > > The page allocation with GFP_NOIO may fail. And zram can handle this > > allocation failure. We do not need to print log for this. > > GFP_NOIO doesn't have any special meaning wrt to failures. zram > allocates from the memory reclaim context which is a bad design IMHO. Agreed. > Is the memory allocation failure gracefully recoverable? No, it's not. I agree that we want to see that allocation warning in the logs.