From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] vmscan: take at least one pass with shrinkers Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 03:56:47 +0400 Message-ID: <50D648BF.7070103@parallels.com> References: <1356086810-6950-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1356086810-6950-3-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20121222235340.GI15182@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121222235340.GI15182@dastard> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Theodore Ts'o , Al Viro On 12/23/2012 03:53 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 02:46:50PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >> In very low free kernel memory situations, it may be the case that we >> have less objects to free than our initial batch size. If this is the >> case, it is better to shrink those, and open space for the new workload >> then to keep them and fail the new allocations. >> >> More specifically, this happens because we encode this in a loop with >> the condition: "while (total_scan >= batch_size)". So if we are in such >> a case, we'll not even enter the loop. >> >> This patch modifies turns it into a do () while {} loop, that will >> guarantee that we scan it at least once, while keeping the behaviour >> exactly the same for the cases in which total_scan > batch_size. >> >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa >> Acked-by: Dave Chinner > > I think you'll find I said: > > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner > > That has a significantly different meaning to Acked-by, so you > should be careful to correctly transcribe tags back to the > patches... > Ooops You are right Dave. That was obviously just lack of attention on my side, not any attempt to upgrade your tag. Thanks for spotting