On 1/28/21 3:31 PM, Wonhyuk Yang wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:23 PM Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:01:27PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> > On 1/28/21 2:50 PM, Wonhyuk Yang wrote: >> > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:25 PM Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> As nr_scanned is post-incremented, this will still consider if the page >> > >> should be used when the limit is reached. ++nr_scanned? >> > > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > Let's consider that limit is 4, nr_scanned is 0 and loop until reach the limit. >> > > 1) pre-increment: it will search three times.(0,1,2) >> > > 2) post-increment: it will search four times. (0,1,2,3) >> > > >> > > So you mean that searching three times is correct? >> > >> > 1) will match the outer loop's "nr_scanned < limit;" condition. It doesn't >> > matter that much in practice, but for consistency sake, it should be 1) Got confused there, it's 2) that matches the outer loop condition, so your patch is fine. >> Ok, while I find it a little strange to enter the loop and then break >> immediately due to the limit, it's a marginal difference and in general, >> the patch makes sense. >> > > Then, should I change post-increment to pre-increment? IMHO, nope. > If so, should I send a new version? It seems like it's too tiny change...
