page-allocator: warn if __GFP_NOFAIL is used for a large allocation

__GFP_NOFAIL is a bad fiction.  Allocations _can_ fail, and callers should
detect and suitably handle this (and not by lamely moving the infinite
loop up to the caller level either).

Attempting to use __GFP_NOFAIL for a higher-order allocation is even
worse, so add a once-off runtime check for this to slap people around for
even thinking about trying it.

Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 076463c..61290ea 100644 (file)
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1128,6 +1128,19 @@ again:
                list_del(&page->lru);
                pcp->count--;
        } else {
+               if (unlikely(gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL)) {
+                       /*
+                        * __GFP_NOFAIL is not to be used in new code.
+                        *
+                        * All __GFP_NOFAIL callers should be fixed so that they
+                        * properly detect and handle allocation failures.
+                        *
+                        * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
+                        * allocate greater than single-page units with
+                        * __GFP_NOFAIL.
+                        */
+                       WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 0);
+               }
                spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
                page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype);
                __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -(1 << order));