[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e3924d13-410c-21e5-b3df-21fea0f45574@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:52:43 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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 2023/7/24 4:37, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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
Sounds better. Will do it in v2.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists