On Mon, 2026-03-02 at 10:02 +0100, Christian König wrote: > On 2/27/26 17:00, Thomas Hellström wrote: > > If the struct ttm_operation_ctx::gfp_retry_mayfail is true, > > buffer object backing store allocation failures are expected to > > silently fail with an error code to the caller. But currently an > > elaborate warning is printed to the system log. > > > > Don't spam the log in this way. > > That was intentionally removed or never added because Simona > absolutely didn't liked the gfp_retry_mayfail flag at that time. > > In general I'm fine with this change since I think we have proved by > now that the flag is useful, but that probably need more wider > discussion.
Well for system memory it is a bit questionable to be honest, I think mostly because even if we return an error, the OOM killer might be invoked on an unrelated allocation immediately afterwards. Still, even if the use of gfp_retry_mayfail can be discussed, I'm not sure why an error here needs to be printed when there are a number of other errors that are not printed or printed only on debug. Thanks, Thomas > > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c > > index c0d95559197c..8fa9e09f6ee5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c > > @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ static int __ttm_pool_alloc(struct ttm_pool > > *pool, struct ttm_tt *tt, > > gfp_flags |= __GFP_ZERO; > > > > if (ctx->gfp_retry_mayfail) > > - gfp_flags |= __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL; > > + gfp_flags |= __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_NOWARN; > > > > if (ttm_pool_uses_dma32(pool)) > > gfp_flags |= GFP_DMA32;
