On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 04:04:15PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > Thanks for the reviews on this patchset, Roman. FYI I think Andrew already merged these patches to the -mm tree. I'll send out a follow-on patch that fixes everything you pointed out, both here and on the other patches in the set. > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 08:57:25AM -0700, David Vernet wrote: > > In test_memcg_min() and test_memcg_low(), there is an array of four sibling > > cgroups. All but one of these sibling groups does a 50MB allocation, and > > the group that does no allocation is the third of four in the array. This > > is not a problem per se, but makes it a bit tricky to do some assertions in > > test_memcg_low(), as we want to make assertions on the siblings based on > > whether or not they performed allocations. Having a static index before > > which all groups have performed an allocation makes this cleaner. > > > > This patch therefore reorders the sibling groups so that the group that > > performs no allocations is the last in the array. > > It makes the comment explaining the test just above the test_memcg_min() > function obsolete. Please, fix it too. Thanks for catching that. I'll fix the comment both in test_memcg_min() and test_memcg_low() when I send out that follow-on patch.
