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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35BCC433E2 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:41:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2134B2076C for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:41:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2134B2076C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 811686B0068; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7C96C6B006E; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:41:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 687EF900004; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:41:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0215.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.215]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD836B0068 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:41:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14FDC8249980 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:41:42 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77270851644.19.basin71_03045192711e Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDC71AD1B4 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:41:41 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: basin71_03045192711e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2389 Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) by imf38.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dggeme751-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.57]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 685C42EE129367064534; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:41:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.99) by dggeme751-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:41:38 +0800 Received: from dggeme753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.7.64.70]) by dggeme753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.7.64.70]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:41:37 +0800 From: linmiaohe To: Michal Hocko CC: "hannes@cmpxchg.org" , "vdavydov.dev@gmail.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: correct the comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() Thread-Topic: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: correct the comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() Thread-Index: AdaMk2onBuSUvuaupEiH3Zos6miJVQ== Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:41:37 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.174.176.109] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: DBDC71AD1B4 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 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: Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 16-09-20 09:19:27, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> Since commit fb2a6fc56be6 ("mm: memcg: rework and document OOM waiting=20 >> and wakeup"), we have renamed mem_cgroup_oom_lock to=20 >> mem_cgroup_oom_trylock. So replace mem_cgroup_oom_lock with mem_cgroup_o= om_trylock in comment. > >While you are right I find the comment more confusing then helpful. >What does it try to tell us actually? Is it still valid? Shouldn't we rath= er remove it or make it more clear? >>=20 It seems this comment no long make sense. Many thanks for your nice advise.