[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:23:43 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, oom: rework oom detection
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 07:19:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
...
> @@ -2592,17 +2589,10 @@ static bool shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist, struct scan_control *sc)
> &nr_soft_scanned);
> sc->nr_reclaimed += nr_soft_reclaimed;
> sc->nr_scanned += nr_soft_scanned;
> - if (nr_soft_reclaimed)
> - reclaimable = true;
> /* need some check for avoid more shrink_zone() */
> }
>
> - if (shrink_zone(zone, sc, zone_idx(zone) == classzone_idx))
> - reclaimable = true;
> -
> - if (global_reclaim(sc) &&
> - !reclaimable && zone_reclaimable(zone))
> - reclaimable = true;
> + shrink_zone(zone, sc, zone_idx(zone));
Shouldn't it be
shrink_zone(zone, sc, zone_idx(zone) == classzone_idx);
?
> }
>
> /*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists