On Wed 30-01-13 11:22:57, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:51:04AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Ying has noticed me (via private email) that the patch is bogus because
> > the break out condition is incorrect. She said she would post a fix
> > but she's been probably too busy. If she doesn't oppose, could you add
> > the follow up fix, please?
> >
> > I am really sorry about this mess.
> > ---
> > >From 6d23b59e96b8173fae2d0d397cb5e99f16899874 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Ying Han <ying...@google.com>
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:42:28 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] mmotm:
> > memcgvmscan-do-not-break-out-targeted-reclaim-without-reclaimed-pages.patch
> > fix
> >
> > We should break out of the hierarchy loop only if nr_reclaimed exceeded
> > nr_to_reclaim and not vice-versa. This patch fixes the condition.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ying Han <ying...@google.com>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index d75c1ec..7528eae 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1985,7 +1985,7 @@ static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone, struct
> > scan_control *sc)
> > * whole hierarchy is not sufficient.
> > */
> > if (!global_reclaim(sc) &&
> > - sc->nr_to_reclaim >= sc->nr_reclaimed) {
> > + sc->nr_to_reclaim <= sc->nr_reclaimed) {
>
> This is just a really weird ordering of the operands, isn't it? You
> compare the constant to the variable, like if (42 == foo->nr_pages).
>
> if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= sc->nr_to_reclaim)
>
> would be less surprising.
No objections from me.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
