[PATCH 0/19] get rid of superfluous __GFP_REPEAT

[Michal Hocko]

Hi,
this is the thrid version of the patchset previously sent [1]. I have
basically only rebased it on top of 4.7-rc1 tree and dropped "dm: get
rid of superfluous gfp flags" which went through dm tree. I am sending
it now because it is tree wide and chances for conflicts are reduced
considerably when we want to target rc2.  I plan to send the next step
and rename the flag and move to a better semantic later during this
release cycle so we will have a new semantic ready for 4.8 merge window
hopefully.

Motivation:
While working on something unrelated I've checked the current usage
of __GFP_REPEAT in the tree. It seems that a majority of the usage is
and always has been bogus because __GFP_REPEAT has always been about
costly high order allocations while we are using it for order-0 or very
small orders very often. It seems that a big pile of them is just a
copy&paste when a code has been adopted from one arch to another.

I think it makes some sense to get rid of them because they are just
making the semantic more unclear. Please note that GFP_REPEAT is
documented as
 * __GFP_REPEAT: Try hard to allocate the memory, but the allocation attempt
 *   _might_ fail.  This depends upon the particular VM implementation.
while !costly requests have basically nofail semantic. So one could
reasonably expect that order-0 request with __GFP_REPEAT will not loop
for ever. This is not implemented right now though.

I would like to move on with __GFP_REPEAT and define a better
semantic for it.

$ git grep __GFP_REPEAT origin/master | wc -l
111
$ git grep __GFP_REPEAT | wc -l
36

So we are down to the third after this patch series. The remaining places
really seem to be relying on __GFP_REPEAT due to large allocation requests.
This still needs some double checking which I will do later after all the
simple ones are sorted out.

I am touching a lot of arch specific code here and I hope I got it right
but as a matter of fact I even didn't compile test for some archs as I
do not have cross compiler for them. Patches should be quite trivial to
review for stupid compile mistakes though. The tricky parts are usually
hidden by macro definitions and thats where I would appreciate help from
arch maintainers.

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1461849846-27209-1-git-send-email-mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx