Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:40:49 +0100 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically |
| |
On Fri 20-01-17 16:33:36, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:49 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > @@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc) > > * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least > > * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here. > > */ > > - if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOFAIL))) > > + if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) > > return true; > > > As to GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL request, can we check gfp mask > one bit after another? > > if (oc->gfp_mask) { > if (!(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) > return false; > > /* No service for request that can handle fail result itself */ > if (!(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL)) > return false; > }
I really do not understand this request. This patch is removing the __GFP_NOFAIL part... Besides that why should they return false? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |