Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Scratch my objection to this patch then. But please do add to/update
> > that XXX comment above that line, or it'll be confusing. Hm?
> >
> > /*
> > * XXX: Page reclaim didn't yield anything,
> > * and the OOM killer can't be invoked, but
> > * keep looping as per tradition. Unless the
> > * system is trying to enter a quiescent state
> > * during suspend and the OOM killer has been
> > * shut off already. Give up like with other
> > * !__GFP_NOFAIL allocations in that case.
> > */
> > *did_some_progress = !oom_killer_disabled;
>
> Yes this makes it more clear IMO.
>
If you don't want to expose oom_killer_disabled outside of the OOM proper,
can't we move this "if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) { ... }" block to before
constraint = constrained_alloc(oc, &totalpages) line in out_of_memory() ?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>