[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230723032538.3190239-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 11:25:38 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection()
Commit 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from
protection checks") changed the function name but not the corresponding
comment.
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index 058fb748e128..64014b656a0f 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -582,9 +582,9 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
/*
* There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim.
* We are special casing this specific case here because
- * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep
- * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for
- * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is
+ * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection calculation is not robust enough
+ * to keep the protection invariant for calculated effective values
+ * for parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is
* especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU)
* which would want to have effective values 0 for targeted reclaim
* but a different value for external reclaim.
--
2.33.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists