Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
To:     mhocko@suse.com
Cc:     shakeelb@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm, oom: do not check 0 mask in out_of_memory()
Date:   Mon,  8 May 2023 07:35:38 +0000
Message-Id: <20230508073538.1168-1-haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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@shopee.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