mm, oom: pass an oom order of -1 when triggered by sysrq
The force_kill member of struct oom_control isn't needed if an order of -1
is used instead. This is the same as order == -1 in struct
compact_control which requires full memory compaction.
This patch introduces no functional change.
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 80a7cbd..77adc8e 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@
* Don't allow any other task to have access to the reserves.
*/
if (test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_MEMDIE)) {
- if (!oc->force_kill)
+ if (oc->order != -1)
return OOM_SCAN_ABORT;
}
if (!task->mm)
@@ -278,7 +278,7 @@
if (oom_task_origin(task))
return OOM_SCAN_SELECT;
- if (task_will_free_mem(task) && !oc->force_kill)
+ if (task_will_free_mem(task) && oc->order != -1)
return OOM_SCAN_ABORT;
return OOM_SCAN_OK;
@@ -718,7 +718,6 @@
.nodemask = NULL,
.gfp_mask = 0,
.order = 0,
- .force_kill = false,
};
if (mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(true))