linux-kernel - wrong comment in do_try_to_free

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44c63dc40804231903m654736e7k47d79373d5449571@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:03:11 +0900
From:	"minchan Kim" <barrioskmc@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: wrong comment in do_try_to_free_pages ?

static unsigned long do_try_to_free_pages(struct zone **zones, gfp_t gfp_mask,
           struct scan_control *sc)
...
...
   /* Take a nap, wait for some writeback to complete */
   if (sc->nr_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
     congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10);
 }
 /* top priority shrink_caches still had more to do? don't OOM, then */
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 if (!sc->all_unreclaimable && scan_global_lru(sc))
   ret = 1;
out:
 /*
....

I think we change shrink_caches commet with shrink_zone.

And I can't understand that's comment.

What's role sc->all_unreclaimable ?
What benefit do we can get with that code ?
If we don't have that code, What's problem happen ?

-- 
Thanks,
barrios
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/