From e4fea72b143848d8bbbeae6d39a890212bcf848e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yu Zhao Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 12:46:20 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] mglru: mm/vmscan.c: fix imprecise comments Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YzSWfFI+MOeb1ils@google.com Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- mm/vmscan.c | 9 ++++----- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 3240d5dd7784aa..04d8b88e521648 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -5076,7 +5076,7 @@ static bool should_abort_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, unsigned long seq, DEFINE_MAX_SEQ(lruvec); if (!current_is_kswapd()) { - /* age each memcg once to ensure fairness */ + /* age each memcg at most once to ensure fairness */ if (max_seq - seq > 1) return true; @@ -5101,10 +5101,9 @@ static bool should_abort_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, unsigned long seq, /* * A minimum amount of work was done under global memory pressure. For - * kswapd, it may be overshooting. For direct reclaim, the target isn't - * met, and yet the allocation may still succeed, since kswapd may have - * caught up. In either case, it's better to stop now, and restart if - * necessary. + * kswapd, it may be overshooting. For direct reclaim, the allocation + * may succeed if all suitable zones are somewhat safe. In either case, + * it's better to stop now, and restart later if necessary. */ for (i = 0; i <= sc->reclaim_idx; i++) { unsigned long wmark;