[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZL2Ph5g05Ud5vAdT@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 21:37:27 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in
mem_cgroup_protection()
On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 11:25:38AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> @@ -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.
This reads a little awkwardly now. How about:
* We are special casing this specific case here because
- * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep
+ * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection is not robust enough to keep
* the protection invariant for calculated effective values for
* parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is
Powered by blists - more mailing lists