... unless it's used with GFP_ATOMIC, which we've always returned NULL
for when even ALLOC_HARDER can't find pages, right?
I'm wondering where this strong argument in favor of continuing to support
__GFP_NOFAIL was when I insisted we call the oom killer for them even for
allocations over PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER when __alloc_pages_nodemask() was
refactored back in 2.6.31. The argument was that nobody is allocating
that high of orders of __GFP_NOFAIL pages so we don't need to free memory
for them and that's where the deprecation of the modifier happened in the
first place. Ultimately, we did invoke the oom killer for those
allocations because there's no chance of forward progress otherwise and,
unlike __GFP_DMA, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL actually is popular.
I'll add this check to __alloc_pages_may_oom() for the !(gfp_mask &
__GFP_NOFAIL) path since we're all content with endlessly looping.
--
