linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: vmscan: refactor reclaim

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <ZC8giqopXVj/KFIL@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 20:42:02 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: vmscan: refactor reclaim_state helpers

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 10:31:53AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-04-05 at 18:54 +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > +	 * For all of these cases, we have no way of finding out whether these
> > +	 * pages were related to the memcg under reclaim. For example, a freed
> > +	 * slab page could have had only a single object charged to the memcg
> 
> Minor nits:
> s/could have had/could have

No ... "could have had" is correct.  I'm a native English speaker, so I
have no idea what the rule here is, but I can ask my linguist wife later
if you want to know ;-)

Maybe it's something like this:
https://www.englishgrammar.org/have-had-and-had-had/