Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:30:32 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] docs/core-api: add memory allocation guide
Message-ID: <20180815093032.GQ32645@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1534314887-9202-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180815063649.GB24091@rapoport-lnx>
 <20180815081539.GN32645@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180815090428.GD24091@rapoport-lnx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180815090428.GD24091@rapoport-lnx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 15-08-18 12:04:29, Mike Rapoport wrote:
[...]
> How about:
> 
> * If the allocation is performed from an atomic context, e.g interrupt
>   handler, use ``GFP_NOWARN``. This flag prevents direct reclaim and IO or
>   filesystem operations. Consequently, under memory pressure ``GFP_NOWARN``
>   allocation is likely to fail.

s@NOWARN@NOWAIT@ I guess. Looks good otherwise. I would even go and
mention GFP_NOWARN once you brought it up. Allocations which have a
reasonable fallback should be using NOWARN.

> * If you think that accessing memory reserves is justified and the kernel
>   will be stressed unless allocation succeeds, you may use ``GFP_ATOMIC``.

OK otherwise.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs