On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:45:53PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/27/20 6:04 PM, Hui Su wrote:
> > In list_lru_walk(), nr_to_walk type is 'unsigned long',
> > so nr_to_walk won't be '< 0'.
> >
> > In list_lru_walk_node(), nr_to_walk type is 'unsigned long',
> > so *nr_to_walk won't be '< 0' too.
> >
> > We can use '!nr_to_walk' instead of 'nr_to_walk <= 0', which
> > is more precise.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hui Su <sh_def@xxxxxxx>
>
> OK. Why not this too?
>
> --- a/mm/list_lru.c
> +++ b/mm/list_lru.c
> @@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ unsigned long list_lru_walk_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
>
> isolated += list_lru_walk_one(lru, nid, NULL, isolate, cb_arg,
> nr_to_walk);
> - if (*nr_to_walk > 0 && list_lru_memcg_aware(lru)) {
> + if (*nr_to_walk && list_lru_memcg_aware(lru)) {
> for_each_memcg_cache_index(memcg_idx) {
> struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
>
>
Thanks for your fast reply.
I did not notice that, and i would add this to my change.
I will resend PATCH V2, and cc to you.
Thanks.
