Re: [PATCH] mm,page_alloc: Update comment for last second allocation attempt.

[Michal Hocko]

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