From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2021 21:46:26 +0100
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm/vmalloc: add support for __GFP_NOFAIL
Message-ID: <YZ6kopRGlHEOgOb5@pc638.lan>
References: <20211122153233.9924-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <20211122153233.9924-3-mhocko@kernel.org>
 <YZ06nna7RirAI+vJ@pc638.lan>
 <YZ1KZKkHSHcSBnBV@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YZ1KZKkHSHcSBnBV@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:09:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 23-11-21 20:01:50, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> [...]
> > I have raised two concerns in our previous discussion about this change,
> > well that is sad...
> 
> I definitely didn't mean to ignore any of the feedback. IIRC we were in
> a disagreement in the failure mode for retry loop - i.e. free all the
> allocated pages in case page table pages cannot be allocated. I still
> maintain my position and until there is a wider consensus on that I will
> keep my current implementation. The other concern was about failures
> warning but that shouldn't be a problem when basing on the current Linus
> tree. Am I missing something?
>
Sorry i was answering vice-versa from latest toward first messages :)

--
Vlad Rezki