Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:25:11 +0200 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memcg: fix comment on update nodemask |
| |
On Thu 11-08-11 08:44:56, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > > /* > > > > * Always updating the nodemask is not very good - even if we have an empty > > > > * list or the wrong list here, we can start from some node and traverse all > > > > @@ -1575,7 +1593,6 @@ static bool test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaim > > > > */ > > > > > > Would be good to update the function comment as well (we still have 10s > > > period there). > > > > > > how about this ? > == > > Update function's comment. The behavior is changed by commit 453a9bf3 > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 5 +---- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Index: mmotm-Aug3/mm/memcontrol.c > =================================================================== > --- mmotm-Aug3.orig/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ mmotm-Aug3/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -1568,10 +1568,7 @@ static bool test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaim > #if MAX_NUMNODES > 1 > > /* > - * Always updating the nodemask is not very good - even if we have an empty > - * list or the wrong list here, we can start from some node and traverse all > - * nodes based on the zonelist. So update the list loosely once per 10 secs. > - * > + * Update scan nodemask with memcg's event_counter(NUMAINFO_EVENTS_TARGET) > */ > static void mem_cgroup_may_update_nodemask(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > {
I would keep the first part about reasoning and just replace the one about 10 secs update.
-- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic
| |