[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:42:13 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, oom: rework oom detection
On Mon 04-04-16 11:23:43, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> 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);
>
> ?
I cannot remember the reason why I have removed it so it is more likely
this was unintentional. Thanks for catching this. I will fold it into
the original patch before I repost the full series (this week
hopefully).
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists