On 12/23/2012 03:53 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:46:50PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> In very low free kernel memory situations, it may be the case that we
>> have less objects to free than our initial batch size. If this is the
>> case, it is better to shrink those, and open space for the new workload
>> then to keep them and fail the new allocations.
>>
>> More specifically, this happens because we encode this in a loop with
>> the condition: "while (total_scan >= batch_size)". So if we are in such
>> a case, we'll not even enter the loop.
>>
>> This patch modifies turns it into a do () while {} loop, that will
>> guarantee that we scan it at least once, while keeping the behaviour
>> exactly the same for the cases in which total_scan > batch_size.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I think you'll find I said:
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> That has a significantly different meaning to Acked-by, so you
> should be careful to correctly transcribe tags back to the
> patches...
>
Ooops
You are right Dave. That was obviously just lack of attention on my
side, not any attempt to upgrade your tag.
Thanks for spotting
--
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>