linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] mm, oom: do not check 0 mask in out_of_memory()
@ 2023-05-08  7:35 Haifeng Xu
  2023-05-08 14:22 ` Michal Hocko
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Haifeng Xu @ 2023-05-08  7:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: mhocko; +Cc: shakeelb, hannes, akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Haifeng Xu

Since commit 60e2793d440a ("mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory
from the #PF"), no user sets gfp_mask to 0. Remove the 0 mask check
and update the comments.

Signed-off-by: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
---
 mm/oom_kill.c | 8 +++-----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 044e1eed720e..612b5597d3af 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -1130,12 +1130,10 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
 
 	/*
 	 * The OOM killer does not compensate for IO-less reclaim.
-	 * pagefault_out_of_memory lost its gfp context so we have to
-	 * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least
-	 * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here. But mem_cgroup_oom() has to
-	 * invoke the OOM killer even if it is a GFP_NOFS allocation.
+	 * But mem_cgroup_oom() has to invoke the OOM killer even
+	 * if it is a GFP_NOFS allocation.
 	 */
-	if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !is_memcg_oom(oc))
+	if (!(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !is_memcg_oom(oc))
 		return true;
 
 	/*
-- 
2.25.1



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] mm, oom: do not check 0 mask in out_of_memory()
  2023-05-08  7:35 [PATCH] mm, oom: do not check 0 mask in out_of_memory() Haifeng Xu
@ 2023-05-08 14:22 ` Michal Hocko
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2023-05-08 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Haifeng Xu; +Cc: shakeelb, hannes, akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel

On Mon 08-05-23 07:35:38, Haifeng Xu wrote:
> Since commit 60e2793d440a ("mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory
> from the #PF"), no user sets gfp_mask to 0. Remove the 0 mask check
> and update the comments.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Thanks!

> ---
>  mm/oom_kill.c | 8 +++-----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> index 044e1eed720e..612b5597d3af 100644
> --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> @@ -1130,12 +1130,10 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * The OOM killer does not compensate for IO-less reclaim.
> -	 * pagefault_out_of_memory lost its gfp context so we have to
> -	 * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least
> -	 * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here. But mem_cgroup_oom() has to
> -	 * invoke the OOM killer even if it is a GFP_NOFS allocation.
> +	 * But mem_cgroup_oom() has to invoke the OOM killer even
> +	 * if it is a GFP_NOFS allocation.
>  	 */
> -	if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !is_memcg_oom(oc))
> +	if (!(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !is_memcg_oom(oc))
>  		return true;
>  
>  	/*
> -- 
> 2.25.1

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-05-08 14:22 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-05-08  7:35 [PATCH] mm, oom: do not check 0 mask in out_of_memory() Haifeng Xu
2023-05-08 14:22 ` Michal Hocko

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox