From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17D3C433E2 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 20:53:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F64921941 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 20:53:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="B4ZfZkQT" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726763AbgIPUxM (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:53:12 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44742 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726607AbgIPQyM (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 12:54:12 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=cantorsusede; t=1600268017; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XWkcsvUYLuBv2uzcZZ0bcAz6BNNnURdggjQevDJBQMk=; b=B4ZfZkQTyh6ucc0CDOCoHrBoEoqEKXhzrWyFLZovTbslQ3qlxl9dwKILWewGtRRgbZ7jGN oCspOgcD2NxVF2Uoem6CrWV3rZeIQ/jL0GIJHPid+1dBMZDai76UsFfEyMFdmZh6hP3hek u5SxSi1yYLMTJa8Ok4sHOjNvjrDALiyEom14min4kLbKOpiXjiz0q6wWZP3Sl7L2LAQOJK TooeaSbvdjdOiHfDIHSO4Y9pzziFgRwbKx3Oce7RH+V+V18TxBd5v16Yhn6CMBrJZFZBM/ wW8YMf2r4GqiIzDVqE7f+EN/iorB0kzWQEY67MdhIffOxYm1PWAsFZvjS8rLYg== Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C570AC4D; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:53:36 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Miaohe Lin Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol: correct the comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() Message-ID: <20200916145336.GI18998@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200916131927.11340-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200916131927.11340-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 16-09-20 09:19:27, Miaohe Lin wrote: > Since commit fb2a6fc56be6 ("mm: memcg: rework and document OOM waiting and > wakeup"), we have renamed mem_cgroup_oom_lock to mem_cgroup_oom_trylock. So > replace mem_cgroup_oom_lock with mem_cgroup_oom_trylock in comment. While you are right I find the comment more confusing then helpful. What does it try to tell us actually? Is it still valid? Shouldn't we rather remove it or make it more clear? > > Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 3d26b4b954e2..702aa4d7ebbc 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -1846,7 +1846,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > > /* > * When a new child is created while the hierarchy is under oom, > - * mem_cgroup_oom_lock() may not be called. Watch for underflow. > + * mem_cgroup_oom_trylock() may not be called. Watch for underflow. > */ > spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock); > for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg) > -- > 2.19.1 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs