Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:48:19 +0200 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] mm: memcontrol: reword obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() |
| |
On Wed 30-09-20 05:53:36, Miaohe Lin wrote: > Since commit 79dfdaccd1d5 ("memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than > counter"), the mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() is added and the comment of > the mem_cgroup_oom_unlock() is moved here. But this comment make no sense > here because mem_cgroup_oom_lock() does not operate on under_oom field. So > we reword the comment as this would be helpful. > [Thanks Michal Hocko for rewording this comment.] > > Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> > Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Thanks!
> --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 6877c765b8d0..4f0c14cb8690 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -1817,8 +1817,8 @@ static void mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > struct mem_cgroup *iter; > > /* > - * When a new child is created while the hierarchy is under oom, > - * mem_cgroup_oom_lock() may not be called. Watch for underflow. > + * Be careful about under_oom underflows becase a child memcg > + * could have been added after mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom. > */ > spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock); > for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg) > -- > 2.19.1
-- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |