| Message ID | 20230723032538.3190239-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection() | expand |
On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 11:25:38AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: > @@ -582,9 +582,9 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, > /* > * There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim. > * We are special casing this specific case here because > - * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep > - * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for > - * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is > + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection calculation is not robust enough > + * to keep the protection invariant for calculated effective values > + * for parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is > * especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU) > * which would want to have effective values 0 for targeted reclaim > * but a different value for external reclaim. This reads a little awkwardly now. How about: * We are special casing this specific case here because - * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection is not robust enough to keep * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is
On 2023/7/24 4:37, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 11:25:38AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> @@ -582,9 +582,9 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, >> /* >> * There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim. >> * We are special casing this specific case here because >> - * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep >> - * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for >> - * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is >> + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection calculation is not robust enough >> + * to keep the protection invariant for calculated effective values >> + * for parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is >> * especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU) >> * which would want to have effective values 0 for targeted reclaim >> * but a different value for external reclaim. > > This reads a little awkwardly now. How about: > > * We are special casing this specific case here because > - * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep > + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection is not robust enough to keep Sounds better. Will do it in v2. Thanks.
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index 058fb748e128..64014b656a0f 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -582,9 +582,9 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, /* * There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim. * We are special casing this specific case here because - * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep - * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for - * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection calculation is not robust enough + * to keep the protection invariant for calculated effective values + * for parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is * especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU) * which would want to have effective values 0 for targeted reclaim * but a different value for external reclaim.
Commit 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from protection checks") changed the function name but not the corresponding comment. Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> --- include/linux/memcontrol.h | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)