On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 10:55:10 +0800 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2024/2/12 22:22, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 08.02.24 22:14, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 10:25:08 +0800 Kefeng Wang > >> <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> No need to continue try compact memory if pending fatal signal, > >>> allow loop termination earlier in compact_nodes(). > >> > >> Seems sensible, but... why? Is there some problem which we can > >> demonstrate with the existing code? In other words, does this change > >> provide any observable benefit under any circumstances? > > > > I'd also be curious why the existing fatal_signal_pending() calls are > > insufficient. > > The existing fatal_signal_pending() does make compact_zone() breakout of > the while loop, but it still enter the next zone/next nid, and some > unnecessary functions(eg, lru_add_drain) called, no observable benefit > from test, it is just found from code inspection when refactor Fair enough. I added the above words to the changelog (this material should have been communicated in the original!) and I'll plan to move this change into mm-stable next week unless someone stops me.
