From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFC46B0038 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:45:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by padbj1 with SMTP id bj1so21350143pad.11 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:45:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net (shards.monkeyblade.net. [2001:4f8:3:36:211:85ff:fe63:a549]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ni10si10902514pbc.149.2015.03.02.13.45.49 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:45:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:45:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20150302.164545.1603268042858889224.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc: clarify __GFP_NOFAIL allocation From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20150302213610.GA31974@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20150302203304.GA20513@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150302.154424.30182050492471222.davem@davemloft.net> <20150302213610.GA31974@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: mhocko@suse.cz Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, rientjes@google.com, david@fromorbit.com, tytso@mit.edu, mgorman@suse.de, penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, vipul@chelsio.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Michal Hocko Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:36:10 +0100 > 920c3ed74134 ([SPARC64]: Add basic infrastructure for MD add/remove > notification.) has added __GFP_NOFAIL for the allocation request but > it hasn't mentioned why is this strict requirement really needed. > The code was handling an allocation failure and propagated it properly > up the callchain so it is not clear why it is needed. > > Dave has clarified the intention when I tried to remove the flag as not > being necessary: > " > It is a serious failure. > > If we miss an MDESC update due to this allocation failure, the update > is not an event which gets retransmitted so we will lose the updated > machine description forever. > > We really need this allocation to succeed. > " > > So add a comment to clarify the nofail flag and get rid of the failure > check because __GFP_NOFAIL allocation doesn't fail. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko Acked-by: David S. Miller -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org