[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230508073538.1168-1-haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 07:35:38 +0000
From: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
To: mhocko@...e.com
Cc: shakeelb@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom: do not check 0 mask in out_of_memory()
Since commit 60e2793d440a ("mm, oom: do not trigger out_of_memory
from the #PF"), no user sets gfp_mask to 0. Remove the 0 mask check
and update the comments.
Signed-off-by: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 8 +++-----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 044e1eed720e..612b5597d3af 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -1130,12 +1130,10 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
/*
* The OOM killer does not compensate for IO-less reclaim.
- * pagefault_out_of_memory lost its gfp context so we have to
- * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least
- * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here. But mem_cgroup_oom() has to
- * invoke the OOM killer even if it is a GFP_NOFS allocation.
+ * But mem_cgroup_oom() has to invoke the OOM killer even
+ * if it is a GFP_NOFS allocation.
*/
- if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !is_memcg_oom(oc))
+ if (!(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !is_memcg_oom(oc))
return true;
/*
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists