From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: fix obsolete function name in mem_cgroup_protection() Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 21:37:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20230723032538.3190239-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=qy3ZfgxHtTZ+H6cA0c7w6ZZsFamgKKUHdZT7/5uteAk=; b=kTr4Znvd56MMHUXN0EHN8A34Ch yiVFzsJ9la7YOzyYLmo8iAxAVQiM+usii43xNwFPgEB3Dm89Ext45zyoZLgfbRA4T8YE2AeEfACaF hdlN4RXUJW4jvNU4NOJzGo99BTK+HQo9ASaYlCCYkYPE+iNCCcK8LV1kVkn/JsqOaCl/XMoyn0hJx RQw2aR4JbD5kt7Z+XuffKRiNWeewjEJlhH9GuiZ0SgDFWquMWUKmsqdV/kHmkhcqVJkPVS4IHakPG tjL6ymvrdGUk+ht5MZQDwVUrFlesfweWrITUN076QSLeriL/Y/lb2HtYOOEDJfCYwzH0LEY4YDomT 0eS8ohCg==; Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230723032538.3190239-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Miaohe Lin Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 11:25:38AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: > @@ -582,9 +582,9 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root, > /* > * There is no reclaim protection applied to a targeted reclaim. > * We are special casing this specific case here because > - * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep > - * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for > - * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is > + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection calculation is not robust enough > + * to keep the protection invariant for calculated effective values > + * for parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is > * especially a problem for tail memcgs (as they have pages on LRU) > * which would want to have effective values 0 for targeted reclaim > * but a different value for external reclaim. This reads a little awkwardly now. How about: * We are special casing this specific case here because - * mem_cgroup_protected calculation is not robust enough to keep + * mem_cgroup_calculate_protection is not robust enough to keep * the protection invariant for calculated effective values for * parallel reclaimers with different reclaim target. This is