From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752377Ab3LPIWw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Dec 2013 03:22:52 -0500
Received: from LGEMRELSE7Q.lge.com ([156.147.1.151]:62983 "EHLO
	LGEMRELSE7Q.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751945Ab3LPIWu (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Dec 2013 03:22:50 -0500
X-AuditID: 9c930197-b7cefae000007949-93-52aeb857fb82
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 17:22:48 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
        azurIt <azurit@pobox.sk>, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@free.fr>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the
 allocator
Message-ID: <20131216082247.GA5334@lge.com>
References: <1381265890-11333-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
 <1381265890-11333-2-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
 <20131203165910.54d6b4724a1f3e329af52ac6@linux-foundation.org>
 <20131204015218.GA19709@lge.com>
 <20131213065805.GC8845@lge.com>
 <00000142ecd51cc6-b987e565-7b4f-4945-89ba-731f1d1376fb-000000@email.amazonses.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00000142ecd51cc6-b987e565-7b4f-4945-89ba-731f1d1376fb-000000@email.amazonses.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 04:40:58PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 
> > Could you review this patch?
> > I think that we should merge it to fix the problem reported by Christian.
> 
> I'd be fine with clearing __GFP_NOFAIL but not with using the same flags
> as for a higher order alloc. __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOWARN should be left
> untouched for the minimal alloc.

Hello.

So you don't want to add __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOWARN for kmemcheck?
I think that it isn't good idea, since users would meet *unexpected*
allocation failure if they enable kmemcheck and slub uses different flags
for kmemcheck. It makes users who want to debug their own problems embarrass.

Thanks.