On 2024/2/22 6:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
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.
Indeed, thanks for the update, you're so kind.
