On 7/24/24 10:55 AM, Barry Song wrote: > From: Barry Song <v-songbao...@oppo.com> > > GFP_NOFAIL includes the meaning of block and direct reclamation, which > is essential for a true no-fail allocation. We are gradually starting > to enforce this block semantics to prevent the potential misuse of > __GFP_NOFAIL in atomic contexts in the future. > > A typical example of incorrect usage is in VDPA, where GFP_ATOMIC > and __GFP_NOFAIL are used together. > > [RFC]: This patch seems quite large; I don't mind splitting it into > multiple patches for different subsystems after patches 1 ~ 4 have > been applied. > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbao...@oppo.com> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c > b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c > index fa01818c1972..29eaf8b84b52 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/xive/common.c > @@ -1146,7 +1146,7 @@ static int __init xive_init_ipis(void) > if (!ipi_domain) > goto out_free_fwnode; > > - xive_ipis = kcalloc(nr_node_ids, sizeof(*xive_ipis), GFP_KERNEL | > __GFP_NOFAIL); > + xive_ipis = kcalloc(nr_node_ids, sizeof(*xive_ipis), GFP_KERNEL | > GFP_NOFAIL);
This (and others) doesn't look great. Normally there's just one GFP_MAIN that combines several commonly used together flags internally, with possibly some | __GFP_EXTRA addition for less common modifications. Now you're combining two GFP_MAIN's and that's just confusing. So if we want to go this way, you'd need e.g. GFP_KERNEL_NOFAIL which is GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL And probably also GFP_NOFS_NOFAIL and GFP_NOIO_NOFAIL (sigh). > if (!xive_ipis) > goto out_free_domain;
