[PATCH] mm/oom_kill: fix stale comment in constrained_alloc()

Ye Liu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kvack.linux-mm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
From: Ye Liu <[email protected]>

The comment above the __GFP_THISNODE check in constrained_alloc()
is stale and inaccurate: it references __GFP_NOFAIL (which is not
checked here), claims the OOM killer does "random task kill" (it
uses badness scores), and mentions CONSTRAINT_THISNODE (which was
never added to the enum).  Replace it with a description that
matches the actual code behavior.

Signed-off-by: Ye Liu <[email protected]>
---
 mm/oom_kill.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 5f372f6e26fa..4b5c70aaece4 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -268,9 +268,9 @@ static enum oom_constraint constrained_alloc(struct oom_control *oc)
 	if (!oc->zonelist)
 		return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
 	/*
-	 * Reach here only when __GFP_NOFAIL is used. So, we should avoid
-	 * to kill current.We have to random task kill in this case.
-	 * Hopefully, CONSTRAINT_THISNODE...but no way to handle it, now.
+	 * __GFP_THISNODE means the allocation is restricted to a single node.
+	 * There is no dedicated constraint type for this case, so return
+	 * CONSTRAINT_NONE and let the normal OOM handling proceed.
 	 */
 	if (oc->gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE)
 		return CONSTRAINT_NONE;
-- 
2.25.1
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.