+ mm-memcontrolc-mem_cgroup_select_victim_node-clarify-comment.patch added to -mm tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The patch titled
     Subject: mm/memcontrol.c:mem_cgroup_select_victim_node(): clarify comment
has been added to the -mm tree.  Its filename is
     mm-memcontrolc-mem_cgroup_select_victim_node-clarify-comment.patch

This patch should soon appear at
    http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-memcontrolc-mem_cgroup_select_victim_node-clarify-comment.patch
and later at
    http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-memcontrolc-mem_cgroup_select_victim_node-clarify-comment.patch

Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
   a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
   b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
   c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
      reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's

*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***

The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days

------------------------------------------------------
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm/memcontrol.c:mem_cgroup_select_victim_node(): clarify comment

> The comment seems to have not much to do with the code?

I guess the comment tries to say that the code path is triggered when we
charge the page which happens _before_ it is added to the LRU list and
so last_scanned_node might contain the stale data.

Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

 mm/memcontrol.c |    7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff -puN mm/memcontrol.c~mm-memcontrolc-mem_cgroup_select_victim_node-clarify-comment mm/memcontrol.c
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c~mm-memcontrolc-mem_cgroup_select_victim_node-clarify-comment
+++ a/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1390,10 +1390,9 @@ int mem_cgroup_select_victim_node(struct
 
 	node = next_node_in(node, memcg->scan_nodes);
 	/*
-	 * We call this when we hit limit, not when pages are added to LRU.
-	 * No LRU may hold pages because all pages are UNEVICTABLE or
-	 * memcg is too small and all pages are not on LRU. In that case,
-	 * we use curret node.
+	 * mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask might have seen no reclaimmable pages
+	 * last time it really checked all the LRUs due to rate limiting.
+	 * Fallback to the current node in that case for simplicity.
 	 */
 	if (unlikely(node == MAX_NUMNODES))
 		node = numa_node_id();
_

Patches currently in -mm which might be from mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx are

mm-memcontrolc-mem_cgroup_select_victim_node-clarify-comment.patch

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies FAQ]     [Kernel Archive]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux