On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:03 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:14:35AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > Currently the kernel force charges the allocations which have __GFP_HIGH
> > flag without triggering the memory reclaim. __GFP_HIGH indicates that
> > the caller is high priority and since commit 869712fd3de5 ("mm:
> > memcontrol: fix network errors from failing __GFP_ATOMIC charges") the
> > kernel let such allocations do force charging. Please note that
> > __GFP_ATOMIC has been replaced by __GFP_HIGH.
> >
> > __GFP_HIGH does not tell if the caller can block or can trigger reclaim.
> > There are separate checks to determine that. So, there is no need to
> > skip reclaim for __GFP_HIGH allocations. So, handle __GFP_HIGH together
> > with __GFP_NOFAIL which also does force charging.
>
> This sounds very reasonable. But shouldn't we check if __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM
> is set and bail out otherwise?
>
We already have a gfpflags_allow_blocking() check which checks for
__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM.
