(2012/06/25 17:45), Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <liwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
my thunderbird's spell checker founds some more ;)
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 4520b57..d474bf6 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -115,8 +115,8 @@ static const char * const mem_cgroup_events_names[] = {
>
> /*
> * Per memcg event counter is incremented at every pagein/pageout. With THP,
> - * it will be incremated by the number of pages. This counter is used for
> - * for trigger some periodic events. This is straightforward and better
> + * it will be incremented by the number of pages. This counter is used to
> + * trigger some periodic events. This is straightforward and better
> * than using jiffies etc. to handle periodic memcg event.
> */
> enum mem_cgroup_events_target {
> @@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node(struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_zone *mctz)
> * Both of vmstat[] and percpu_counter has threshold and do periodic
> * synchronization to implement "quick" read. There are trade-off between
> * reading cost and precision of value. Then, we may have a chance to implement
> - * a periodic synchronizion of counter in memcg's counter.
> + * a periodic synchronization of counter in memcg's counter.
> *
> * But this _read() function is used for user interface now. The user accounts
> * memory usage by memory cgroup and he _always_ requires exact value because
> @@ -677,7 +677,7 @@ mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node(struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_zone *mctz)
> *
> * If there are kernel internal actions which can make use of some not-exact
> * value, and reading all cpu value can be performance bottleneck in some
> - * common workload, threashold and synchonization as vmstat[] should be
> + * common workload, threshold and synchonization as vmstat[] should be
synchronization
> * implemented.
> */
> static long mem_cgroup_read_stat(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> @@ -1304,7 +1304,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_end_move(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> *
> * mem_cgroup_under_move() - checking a cgroup is mc.from or mc.to or
> * under hierarchy of moving cgroups. This is for
> - * waiting at hith-memory prressure caused by "move".
> + * waiting at hit-memory pressure caused by "move".
> */
>
> static bool mem_cgroup_stolen(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> @@ -1597,7 +1597,7 @@ int mem_cgroup_select_victim_node(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> /*
> * Check all nodes whether it contains reclaimable pages or not.
> * For quick scan, we make use of scan_nodes. This will allow us to skip
> - * unused nodes. But scan_nodes is lazily updated and may not cotain
> + * unused nodes. But scan_nodes is lazily updated and may not contain
> * enough new information. We need to do double check.
> */
> static bool mem_cgroup_reclaimable(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, bool noswap)
> @@ -2211,7 +2211,6 @@ static int mem_cgroup_do_charge(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> if (mem_cgroup_wait_acct_move(mem_over_limit))
> return CHARGE_RETRY;
>
> - /* If we don't need to call oom-killer at el, return immediately */
> if (!oom_check)
> return CHARGE_NOMEM;
> /* check OOM */
> @@ -2289,7 +2288,7 @@ again:
> * In that case, "memcg" can point to root or p can be NULL with
> * race with swapoff. Then, we have small risk of mis-accouning.
accounting
Could you update ?
Thanks,
-Kame
(*) In my experience, too rapid update doesn't work well, maintainers cannot review it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
