From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CC7E6B004F for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:16:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n6H0GL4c017984 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:16:21 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80592AEA82 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:16:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94ABB45DE4D for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:16:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D0F1DB803E for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:16:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F491DB803F for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:16:20 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: shrink_inactive_lis() nr_scan accounting fix fix In-Reply-To: <20090716125516.GB28895@localhost> References: <20090716095241.9D0D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090716125516.GB28895@localhost> Message-Id: <20090717091439.A906.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:16:19 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Wu Fengguang Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , Christoph Lameter List-ID: > Not a newly introduced problem, but this early break might under scan > the list, if (max_scan > swap_cluster_max). Luckily the only two > callers all call with (max_scan <= swap_cluster_max). > > What shall we do? The comprehensive solution may be to > - remove the big do-while loop > - replace sc->swap_cluster_max => max_scan > - take care in the callers to not passing small max_scan values > > Or to simply make this function more robust like this? Sorry, I haven't catch your point. Can you please tell me your worried scenario? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org