@@ -2564,15 +2564,6 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
goto retry;
}
- /*
- * Memcg doesn't have a dedicated reserve for atomic
- * allocations. But like the global atomic pool, we need to
- * put the burden of reclaim on regular allocation requests
- * and let these go through as privileged allocations.
- */
- if (gfp_mask & __GFP_HIGH)
- goto force;
-
/*
* Prevent unbounded recursion when reclaim operations need to
* allocate memory. This might exceed the limits temporarily,
@@ -2646,7 +2637,13 @@ static int try_charge_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
goto retry;
}
nomem:
- if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL))
+ /*
+ * Memcg doesn't have a dedicated reserve for atomic
+ * allocations. But like the global atomic pool, we need to
+ * put the burden of reclaim on regular allocation requests
+ * and let these go through as privileged allocations.
+ */
+ if (!(gfp_mask & (__GFP_NOFAIL | __GFP_HIGH)))
return -ENOMEM;
force:
/*
Currently the kernel force charges the allocations which have __GFP_HIGH flag without triggering the memory reclaim. __GFP_HIGH indicates that the caller is high priority and since commit 869712fd3de5 ("mm: memcontrol: fix network errors from failing __GFP_ATOMIC charges") the kernel lets such allocations do force charging. Please note that __GFP_ATOMIC has been replaced by __GFP_HIGH. __GFP_HIGH does not tell if the caller can block or can trigger reclaim. There are separate checks to determine that. So, there is no need to skip reclaiming for __GFP_HIGH allocations. So, handle __GFP_HIGH together with __GFP_NOFAIL which also does force charging. Please note that this is a noop change as there are no __GFP_HIGH allocators in the kernel which also have __GFP_ACCOUNT (or SLAB_ACCOUNT) and does not allow reclaim for now. Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> --- Changes since v1: - None mm/memcontrol.c | 17 +++++++---------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)