Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 20:42:02 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: vmscan: refactor reclaim_state helpers
Message-ID: <ZC8giqopXVj/KFIL@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230405185427.1246289-1-yosryahmed@google.com>
 <20230405185427.1246289-3-yosryahmed@google.com>
 <7ce03e4323b95c1e8fd3faed32c9b285162fe5a8.camel@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7ce03e4323b95c1e8fd3faed32c9b285162fe5a8.camel@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 10:31:53AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-04-05 at 18:54 +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > +	 * For all of these cases, we have no way of finding out whether these
> > +	 * pages were related to the memcg under reclaim. For example, a freed
> > +	 * slab page could have had only a single object charged to the memcg
> 
> Minor nits:
> s/could have had/could have

No ... "could have had" is correct.  I'm a native English speaker, so I
have no idea what the rule here is, but I can ask my linguist wife later
if you want to know ;-)

Maybe it's something like this:
https://www.englishgrammar.org/have-had-and-had-had/