Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f3d0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id a16csp3869963pxv; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:51:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwrtmcO6OaPo8WssYPs7Xp2DB8ZEfBoubWzGACBhaBeFD5/59RxNUD0HSR+rONYyYgMEKZn X-Received: by 2002:a6b:4f08:: with SMTP id d8mr3115168iob.199.1626180690868; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:51:30 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1626180690; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=v+1G6CgxhvM413EnhDsSMWQRBcZZXFGUrzYHxYIZt0wfgSsGSkNPCr/XCTu2dwgMXr wWizQIZcSfg3FIcKOnLYJGM971f41WifZK4+Ei4mwyQvQTf3j41Z9SxU5vyMgO+2cKWx 0geQvmPILGcrxHshDHY64WgnD0XM977QNaE0wp3VfIEEYgjVsWuqYw77TWQmgfzKzchA XUXNOP1RLTmfzn6kxC/bg9yVCcid5FXCm3M+XF7xFvAdKc8bO47vAUpsdvYvW7E4T31/ bvjxUUWk6W5dE4ihynwwtLwyOKzVZO0ycN1/nGGEFoxuoGBc+9zy9Z+DK1JP5Ea9JzHI 8lIA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject; bh=305q3pefH6ICpFRqPCHXii6/AmEgEojPyfYPidD8xmw=; b=ltSHAYh1aJCohdIoqERnWXeNjbU8bjkphO800zDCKdxUNGXcjmzkJETteuK98JEifw OnxxQEEC6CDAWCf4J31bTFXab1JsCFXR38MMz8Muubs4AMx7lhKVysvEhcLXQxKe+xq3 hDJ52oj1s+3zQJlUcZ3pM0NmjH1bUJuu30lUxaDnldEkHW4z0JOVVz0yxkdcV9LBfFfm pyQCBCZpSCCL+06WAu39sxRP27V+NX860ucmw/rrHVHWRBZLuy3JHWiFHH+WSFUw8Sl9 H/n74YsasQUvmo3Ur8FptKgQe4b0al+9k87mZZQ9a5WWYd1Sc450U3tZAUcfqhyB1dAp vc9w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x9si6377191jat.100.2021.07.13.05.51.18; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236209AbhGMMxb (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:53:31 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.187]:15009 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236135AbhGMMxa (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:53:30 -0400 Received: from dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.55]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GPL4p2P4szbbyh; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:47:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.125] (10.174.178.125) by dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:50:38 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/vmscan: fix misleading comment in isolate_lru_pages() To: Michal Hocko CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20210710100329.49174-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> <20210710100329.49174-6-linmiaohe@huawei.com> From: Miaohe Lin Message-ID: <4ecacfca-4aba-b2c2-bc61-56a7a5d0fb2b@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:50:38 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.178.125] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.99) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2021/7/13 17:32, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 12-07-21 19:16:47, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> On 2021/7/12 15:28, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Sat 10-07-21 18:03:29, Miaohe Lin wrote: >>>> We couldn't know whether the page is being freed elsewhere until we failed >>>> to increase the page count. >>> >>> This is moving a hard to understand comment from one place to another. >> >> If get_page_unless_zero failed, the page could have been freed elsewhere. I think >> this looks straightforward but doesn't help a lot. Are you preferring to just >> remove this comment ? > > Yes the comment in its current form is not really helpful much. Does it > deserve a single liner to drop it? Likely not on its own without more > changes in that area. Sure, I will drop this single patch. And I would send a new patch when I collect enough misleading/obsolete comments to fix. Thanks. >