From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f197.google.com (mail-wr0-f197.google.com [209.85.128.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C5D440CD7 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 07:32:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-f197.google.com with SMTP id v105so3058979wrc.11 for ; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 04:32:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w14si483476edi.259.2017.11.09.04.32.09 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Nov 2017 04:32:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:32:07 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm,page_alloc: Update comment for last second allocation attempt. Message-ID: <20171109123207.h7xfm7tkj7li4wca@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1510138908-6265-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20171108145039.tdueguedqos4rpk5@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201711091945.IAD64050.MtLFFQOOSOFJHV@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20171109113040.77gapoevxszejyfm@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201711092119.BJH69746.OFMOQFOLVtSFHJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20171109122519.gzopklggx3s222d6@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171109122519.gzopklggx3s222d6@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, aarcange@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org On Thu 09-11-17 13:25:19, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 09-11-17 21:19:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > So, I believe that the changelog is not wrong, and I don't want to preserve > > > > > > > > keep very high watermark here, this is only to catch a parallel oom killing, > > > > we must fail if we're still under heavy pressure > > > > > > > > part which lost strong background. > > > > > > I do not see how. You simply do not address the original concern Andrea > > > had and keep repeating unrelated stuff. > > > > What does "address the original concern Andrea had" mean? > > I'm still thinking that the original concern Andrea had is no longer > > valid in the current code because precondition has changed. > > I am sorry but I am not going to repeat myself. In any case, if you want to change high->low watermark for the last allocation then it deserves a separate patch with the justification, user visible changes. All you do here is to make the comment disagree with the code which is not an improvement at all. Quite contrary I would dare to say. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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