Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2023 10:06:34 +0100
From:   Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        Linux btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Regressions <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
        Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>, a1bert@atlas.cz,
        Forza <forza@tnonline.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: do not output a spurious warning when huge
 vmalloc() fails
Message-ID: <6b954be8-c7be-436b-996d-92b0469ef74d@lucifer.local>
References: <20230605201107.83298-1-lstoakes@gmail.com>
 <cd47d6ac-69ce-0315-dd45-2cb9dce57f36@suse.cz>
 <f6b42d95-09f1-48d6-8274-e6145febb31d@lucifer.local>
 <2a6fa9d6-53b8-93cd-16c8-309ce2b8e3ac@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2a6fa9d6-53b8-93cd-16c8-309ce2b8e3ac@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:58:40AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> I think I found the commit from 6.3 that effectively exposed this warning.
> As this is a tracked regression I would really suggest moving the fix to
> mm-hotfixes instead of mm-unstable, and
>
> Fixes: 80b1d8fdfad1 ("mm: vmalloc: correct use of __GFP_NOWARN mask in __vmalloc_area_node()")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>

Yeah, ugh. What's irritating is that this is not incorrect - invoking
warn_alloc() in such a way that it does literally nothing is not right, so
that fix was required, but it simply exposed another issue.

But completely agree this is technically a regression, and yes Andrew it'd
be great if we could move this to hotfixes and append the stable cc if
possible thanks!

(We definitely need to refactor a lot of this code!)