From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0255C001B0 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:37:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0D31A6B0071; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 16:37:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 084556B0074; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 16:37:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EB3FD6B0075; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 16:37:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFD36B0071 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 16:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47714083A for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:37:36 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81044037312.28.8E4FCFF Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) by imf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE591C000D for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:37:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=kTr4Znvd; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1690144655; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=qy3ZfgxHtTZ+H6cA0c7w6ZZsFamgKKUHdZT7/5uteAk=; b=C9uzqqQLDSh4Q/40ouW8w7k8hcnOrqjILZh39oyg/7EpZ0em6oFLxCCGxKE8EA++UxtoNd Ecdf2kF6Iv8d04Qf7ZPRBjIbUdk5YA3vXRoHlPlMB5aQ4B5aMLf7N/hUs8HtluhHKUQksB 6En7aVm1XwGMQL3ehVuudGaftdacOYY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=infradead.org header.s=casper.20170209 header.b=kTr4Znvd; dmarc=none; spf=none (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of willy@infradead.org has no SPF policy when checking 90.155.50.34) smtp.mailfrom=willy@infradead.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1690144655; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=1gcXRpOc9WTOgdd1khI1ATASkXG6xM+syrRK2fxkuL5KvEtOA0CWI7U+LO4taIiQRJ3nV/ 6wu6j4LihcQkA4P30cC1M6yLppzGZqCt06S3nQfJJFN5jVSqWKL59h/Aye8Ql+ZcFmIzQx DDOJcE7Zl8vwQMnYu42R/eMxls527V4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=qy3ZfgxHtTZ+H6cA0c7w6ZZsFamgKKUHdZT7/5uteAk=; b=kTr4Znvd56MMHUXN0EHN8A34Ch yiVFzsJ9la7YOzyYLmo8iAxAVQiM+usii43xNwFPgEB3Dm89Ext45zyoZLgfbRA4T8YE2AeEfACaF hdlN4RXUJW4jvNU4NOJzGo99BTK+HQo9ASaYlCCYkYPE+iNCCcK8LV1kVkn/JsqOaCl/XMoyn0hJx RQw2aR4JbD5kt7Z+XuffKRiNWeewjEJlhH9GuiZ0SgDFWquMWUKmsqdV/kHmkhcqVJkPVS4IHakPG tjL6ymvrdGUk+ht5MZQDwVUrFlesfweWrITUN076QSLeriL/Y/lb2HtYOOEDJfCYwzH0LEY4YDomT 0eS8ohCg==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qNfpX-003aTh-8Y; Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:37:27 +0000 Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 21:37:27 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Miaohe Lin Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection() Message-ID: References: <20230723032538.3190239-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230723032538.3190239-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DE591C000D X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Stat-Signature: nhuiyhwfuzgf91gosmfjxetofskghprq X-HE-Tag: 1690144654-204770 X-HE-Meta: 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 3rxMUyRG e3WIGKMztMoGJ+uUPZuZUxQAlafwIBt8ajNTdqynKyhasmX/SjgTOcPGgjiEt2nsMV6EhplqNXu/K0v6UGQodb9+foxNqFQEVSXmy6k8oGnsSeAOQrgSs59DVuPl4KOWXtiTBhSjzLV0N2ddOFbKniBV8meXJrF2ZyFCd2qiNoOAYxluirrakPJL89w== X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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