On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:49:13PM -0700, Chris Mason wrote: > On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 16:44:11 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As part of the effort to move to mm->flags becoming a bitmap field, convert > > existing users to making use of the mm_flags_*() accessors which will, when > > the conversion is complete, be the only means of accessing mm_struct flags. > > > > This will result in the debug output being that of a bitmap output, which > > will result in a minor change here, but since this is for debug only, this > > should have no bearing. > > > > Otherwise, no functional changes intended. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]> > > [ ... ] > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > > index 25923cfec9c6..17650f0b516e 100644 > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > [ ... ] > > > @@ -1251,7 +1251,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(process_mrelease, int, pidfd, > > unsigned int, flags) > > * Check MMF_OOM_SKIP again under mmap_read_lock protection to ensure > > * possible change in exit_mmap is seen > > */ > > - if (!test_bit(MMF_OOM_SKIP, &mm->flags) && !__oom_reap_task_mm(mm)) > > + if (mm_flags_test(MMF_OOM_SKIP, mm) && !__oom_reap_task_mm(mm)) > > ret = -EAGAIN; > > mmap_read_unlock(mm); > > > > Hi Lorzeno, I think we lost a ! here. > > claude found enough inverted logic in moved code that I did a new run with > a more explicit prompt for it, but this was the only new hit.
Thanks, my bad, will send a fix-patch. Kind of remarkable/interesting nothing hit this though... but not necessarily a good thing :) > > -chris > Cheers, Lorenzo
