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
--
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>
