linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/vmscan: reclaim only affects managed

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

Message-ID: <2028e2ed-7084-2ba0-faaf-dd71249c8334@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 15:11:31 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <ying.huang@...el.com>, <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/vmscan: reclaim only affects managed_zones

On 2022/3/27 10:41, Wei Yang wrote:
> As mentioned in commit 6aa303defb74 ("mm, vmscan: only allocate and
> reclaim from zones with pages managed by the buddy allocator") , reclaim
> only affects managed_zones.
> 
> Let's adjust the code and comment accordingly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>

Looks good to me. Thanks.

Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>

> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 7ad54b770bb1..89745cf34386 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1031,7 +1031,7 @@ static bool skip_throttle_noprogress(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>  	for (i = 0; i < MAX_NR_ZONES; i++) {
>  		struct zone *zone = pgdat->node_zones + i;
>  
> -		if (!populated_zone(zone))
> +		if (!managed_zone(zone))
>  			continue;
>  
>  		reclaimable += zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
> @@ -3912,7 +3912,7 @@ static bool pgdat_balanced(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, int highest_zoneidx)
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * If a node has no populated zone within highest_zoneidx, it does not
> +	 * If a node has no managed zone within highest_zoneidx, it does not
>  	 * need balancing by definition. This can happen if a zone-restricted
>  	 * allocation tries to wake a remote kswapd.
>  	 */
>