[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E8ECBC65D0B2554DAD44EBE43059B3741A2BFEEC@ORSMSX110.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:21:36 +0000
From: "Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>
To: "Tang, Feng" <feng.tang@...el.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/3] make vm_committed_as_batch aware of vm overcommit
policy
>If it's true, then there could be 2 solutions, one is to skip the WARN_ONCE as it has no practical value, as the real >check is the following code, the other is to rectify the percpu counter when the policy is changing to >OVERCOMMIT_NEVER.
I think it's better to fix it up when the policy changes. That's the right place. The WARN_ON might be useful to catch other bugs.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists