Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm, tree wide: replace __GFP_REPEAT by __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL with more useful semantic

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 06/26/2017 02:14 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 26-06-17 13:45:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 06/23/2017 10:53 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> - GFP_KERNEL - both background and direct reclaim are allowed and the
>>>   _default_ page allocator behavior is used. That means that !costly
>>>   allocation requests are basically nofail (unless the requesting task
>>>   is killed by the OOM killer)
>>
>> Should we explicitly point out that failure must be handled? After lots
>> of talking about "too small to fail", people might get the wrong impression.
> 
> OK. What about the following.
> "That means that !costly allocation requests are basically nofail but
> there is no guarantee of thaat behavior so failures have to be checked

                           that

> properly by callers (e.g. OOM killer victim is allowed to fail
> currently).

Looks good, thanks!