* [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection()
@ 2023-07-23 3:25 Miaohe Lin
2023-07-23 20:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Miaohe Lin @ 2023-07-23 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel, cgroups, linmiaohe
Commit 45c7f7e1ef17 ("mm, memcg: decouple e{low,min} state mutations from
protection checks") changed the function name but not the corresponding
comment.
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index 058fb748e128..64014b656a0f 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -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.
--
2.33.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection()
2023-07-23 3:25 [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection() Miaohe Lin
@ 2023-07-23 20:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-24 1:52 ` Miaohe Lin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Wilcox @ 2023-07-23 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miaohe Lin; +Cc: akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel, cgroups
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection()
2023-07-23 20:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
@ 2023-07-24 1:52 ` Miaohe Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Miaohe Lin @ 2023-07-24 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthew Wilcox; +Cc: akpm, linux-mm, linux-kernel, cgroups
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-07-24 1:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-07-23 3:25 [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection() Miaohe Lin
2023-07-23 20:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-24 1:52 ` Miaohe Lin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox