On 05/17/16 19:35, Li Peng wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Li Peng <[email protected]>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
> mm/page_alloc.c | 6 +++---
> mm/vmscan.c | 7 +++----
> mm/zswap.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 142cb61..8ff5a79 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -3267,8 +3267,7 @@ static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order,
> int classzone_idx)
> /*
> * There should be no need to raise the scanning
> * priority if enough pages are already being scanned
> - * that that high watermark would be met at 100%
> - * efficiency.
> + * that high watermark would be met at 100% efficiency.
I think that this one wasn't wrong, just confusing. Maybe change it to:
* that the high watermark would be met at 100%
efficiency.
> */
> if (kswapd_shrink_zone(zone, end_zone, &sc))
> raise_priority = false;
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index de0f119b..6d829d7 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zpool *pool,
> unsigned long handle)
> * a load may happening concurrently
> * it is safe and okay to not free the entry
> * if we free the entry in the following put
> - * it it either okay to return !0
> + * it either okay to return !0
That's still confusing. Needs some kind of help.
> */
> fail:
> spin_lock(&tree->lock);
>
--
~Randy
