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 S1752907AbcCGO6G (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:58:06 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35406 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752634AbcCGO57 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:57:59 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove __GFP_NOFAIL is deprecated comment
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Nikolay Borisov <kernel@kyup.com>
References: <1456397002-27172-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <56CEE72B.5040009@kyup.com> <20160225134850.GA4204@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Message-ID: <56DD96F4.1060805@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:57:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160225134850.GA4204@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 02/25/2016 02:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 25-02-16 13:36:11, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> -		if (unlikely(gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
> -			/*
> -			 * __GFP_NOFAIL is not to be used in new code.
> -			 *
> -			 * All __GFP_NOFAIL callers should be fixed so that they
> -			 * properly detect and handle allocation failures.
> -			 *
> -			 * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
> -			 * allocate greater than order-1 page units with
> -			 * __GFP_NOFAIL.
> -			 */
> -			WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 1);
> -		}
> +		/*
> +		 * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
> +		 * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
> +		 */
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE((gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));
>   		spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
>
>   		page = NULL;
>

Hmm, even the reduced text (and the WARN_ON in the first place) sounds 
IMHO discouraging enough to make people think that opencoding a loop 
around such allocations is a good workaround. Yeah, we have a 
better/more thorough explanation around the __GFP_NOFAIL definition, but 
the WARN_ON will point people here.