On Fri 23-09-16 12:47:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 09/23/2016 10:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 23-09-16 08:55:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > [...] > >> >From 1623d5bd441160569ffad3808aeeec852048e558 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > >> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:02:37 +0200 > >> Subject: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to > >> should_reclaim_retry() > >> > >> The should_reclaim_retry() makes decisions based on no_progress_loops, so it > >> makes sense to also update the counter there. It will be also consistent with > >> should_compact_retry() and compaction_retries. No functional change. > >> > >> [hillf.zj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: fix missing pointer dereferences] > >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > >> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > OK, this looks reasonable to me. Could you post both patches in a > > Both? I would argue that [1] might be relevant because it resets the > number of retries. Only the should_reclaim_retry() cleanup is not > stricly needed. Even if it is needed which I am not really sure about it would be easier to track than in the middle of another thread. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>