The patch titled Subject: vmscan: comment too_many_isolated() has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was vmscan-comment-too_many_isolated.patch This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree ------------------------------------------------------ From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: vmscan: comment too_many_isolated() Comment "Why it's doing so" rather than "What it does" as proposed by Andrew Morton. Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- mm/vmscan.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff -puN mm/vmscan.c~vmscan-comment-too_many_isolated mm/vmscan.c --- a/mm/vmscan.c~vmscan-comment-too_many_isolated +++ a/mm/vmscan.c @@ -1177,7 +1177,11 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page) } /* - * Are there way too many processes in the direct reclaim path already? + * A direct reclaimer may isolate SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages from the LRU list and + * then get resheduled. When there are massive number of tasks doing page + * allocation, such sleeping direct reclaimers may keep piling up on each CPU, + * the LRU list will go small and be scanned faster than necessary, leading to + * unnecessary swapping, thrashing and OOM. */ static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file, struct scan_control *sc) _ Patches currently in -mm which might be from fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx are origin.patch linux-next.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