From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751543AbdATIeI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2017 03:34:08 -0500
Received: from out0-142.mail.aliyun.com ([140.205.0.142]:52099 "EHLO
        out0-142.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751489AbdATIeH (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2017 03:34:07 -0500
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R181e4;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e02c03280;MF=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=9;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---.7UMW59E_1484901216;
Reply-To: "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
From: "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
To: "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "'Johannes Weiner'" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "'Tetsuo Handa'" <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        "'David Rientjes'" <rientjes@google.com>,
        "'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@suse.de>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@suse.com>
References: <20161220134904.21023-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20161220134904.21023-3-mhocko@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20161220134904.21023-3-mhocko@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm, oom: do not enfore OOM killer for __GFP_NOFAIL automatically
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:33:36 +0800
Message-ID: <001f01d272f7$e53acbd0$afb06370$@alibaba-inc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI5GhCbBXj+0AWvuNrZg+/tQ4jXjAKoT3afoF50sAA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 9:49 PM Michal Hocko wrote: 
> 
> @@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@ bool out_of_memory(struct oom_control *oc)
>  	 * make sure exclude 0 mask - all other users should have at least
>  	 * ___GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM to get here.
>  	 */
> -	if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_NOFAIL)))
> +	if (oc->gfp_mask && !(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
>  		return true;
> 
As to GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL request, can we check gfp mask
one bit after another?

	if (oc->gfp_mask) {
		if (!(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
			return false;

		/* No service for request that can handle fail result itself */
		if (!(oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
			return false;
	}

thanks
Hillf