LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Qiang Huang <h.huangqiang@huawei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: remove gfp helper function
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:25:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141127102547.GA18833@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1411261416480.13014@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Wed 26-11-14 14:17:32, David Rientjes wrote:
> Commit b9921ecdee66 ("mm: add a helper function to check may oom
> condition") was added because the gfp criteria for oom killing was
> checked in both the page allocator and memcg.
> 
> That was true for about nine months, but then commit 0029e19ebf84 ("mm:
> memcontrol: remove explicit OOM parameter in charge path") removed the
> memcg usecase.
> 
> Fold the implementation into its only caller.

I don't care much whether the check is open coded or hidden behind the
helper but I would really appreciate a comment explaining why we care
about these two particular gfp flags. The code is like that since ages
- excavation work would lead us back to 2002 resp. 2003. Let's save
other others people time and do not repeat the same exercise again.

What about a comment like the following?

> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/oom.h | 5 -----
>  mm/page_alloc.c     | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2706,7 +2706,7 @@ rebalance:
>  	 * running out of options and have to consider going OOM
>  	 */
>  	if (!did_some_progress) {
> -		if (oom_gfp_allowed(gfp_mask)) {
		/*
		 * Do not attempt to trigger OOM killer for !__GFP_FS
		 * allocations because it would be premature to kill
		 * anything just because the reclaim is stuck on
		 * dirty/writeback pages.
		 * __GFP_NORETRY allocations might fail and so the OOM
		 * would be more harmful than useful.
		 */
> +		if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
>  			if (oom_killer_disabled)
>  				goto nopage;
>  			/* Coredumps can quickly deplete all memory reserves */

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-27 10:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-26 22:17 David Rientjes
2014-11-27 10:25 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2014-12-01 23:30   ` Johannes Weiner
2014-12-03 15:52     ` Michal Hocko
2014-12-03 18:15       ` Johannes Weiner
2014-12-04 15:17         ` Michal Hocko
2014-12-04 20:19           ` Johannes Weiner
2014-12-05 14:05             ` Michal Hocko
2014-12-03 23:10       ` Andrew Morton
2014-12-01 23:23 ` Johannes Weiner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141127102547.GA18833@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=h.huangqiang@huawei.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --subject='Re: [patch] mm, oom: remove gfp helper function' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).