[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171103135739.svmtesmgynshjuth@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:57:39 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: Update comment for last second allocation
attempt.
On Fri 03-11-17 22:46:29, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index c274960..547e9cb 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3312,11 +3312,10 @@ void warn_alloc(gfp_t gfp_mask, nodemask_t *nodemask, const char *fmt, ...)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Go through the zonelist yet one more time, keep very high watermark
> - * here, this is only to catch a parallel oom killing, we must fail if
> - * we're still under heavy pressure. But make sure that this reclaim
> - * attempt shall not depend on __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM && !__GFP_NORETRY
> - * allocation which will never fail due to oom_lock already held.
> + * This allocation attempt must not depend on __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM &&
> + * !__GFP_NORETRY allocation which will never fail due to oom_lock
> + * already held. And since this allocation attempt does not sleep,
> + * there is no reason we must use high watermark here.
> */
> page = get_page_from_freelist((gfp_mask | __GFP_HARDWALL) &
> ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, order,
Which patch does this depend on?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists