[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220822154822.366a9e4527b748cf99d98637@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 15:48:22 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, brauner@...nel.org,
hch@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 2/2] mm: delete unused MMF_OOM_VICTIM flag
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 16:33:51 -0600 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> wrote:
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c~mm-delete-unused-mmf_oom_victim-flag-fix
> > +++ a/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -3429,9 +3429,6 @@ static bool should_skip_mm(struct mm_str
> > if (size < MIN_LRU_BATCH)
> > return true;
> >
> > - if (mm_is_oom_victim(mm))
> > - return true;
> > -
> > return !mmget_not_zero(mm);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -4127,9 +4124,6 @@ restart:
> >
> > walk_pmd_range(&val, addr, next, args);
> >
> > - if (mm_is_oom_victim(args->mm))
> > - return 1;
> > -
> > /* a racy check to curtail the waiting time */
> > if (wq_has_sleeper(&walk->lruvec->mm_state.wait))
> > return 1;
> > _
> >
> > Please confirm?
>
> LGTM. The deleted checks are not about correctness.
OK, for now.
> I've queued
>
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -3402,7 +3402,7 @@ static bool should_skip_mm(struct mm_struct *mm,
> struct lru_gen_mm_walk *walk)
> if (size < MIN_LRU_BATCH)
> return true;
>
> - if (mm_is_oom_victim(mm))
> + if (test_bit(MMF_OOM_REAP_QUEUED, &mm->flags))
> return true;
>
> return !mmget_not_zero(mm);
> @@ -4109,7 +4109,7 @@ static int walk_pud_range(p4d_t *p4d, unsigned
> long start, unsigned long end,
>
> walk_pmd_range(&val, addr, next, args);
>
> - if (mm_is_oom_victim(args->mm))
> + if (test_bit(MMF_OOM_REAP_QUEUED, &args->mm->flags))
> return 1;
>
> /* a racy check to curtail the waiting time */
Oh. Why? What does this change do?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists