From: Miaohe Lin Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 23:53:05 +0000 (-0700) Subject: mm: memcontrol: reword obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() X-Git-Tag: v5.15~2704^2~94 X-Git-Url: http://review.tizen.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=7a52d4d88ade00c99db007708bbcc5b9311f9ea4;p=platform%2Fkernel%2Flinux-starfive.git mm: memcontrol: reword obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() Since commit 79dfdaccd1d5 ("memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than counter"), the mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() is added and the comment of the mem_cgroup_oom_unlock() is moved here. But this comment make no sense here because mem_cgroup_oom_lock() does not operate on under_oom field. So we reword the comment as this would be helpful. [Thanks Michal Hocko for rewording this comment.] Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Acked-by: Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Vladimir Davydov Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200930095336.21323-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index e9fa32a..c04b57c 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c @@ -1826,8 +1826,8 @@ static void mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) struct mem_cgroup *iter; /* - * When a new child is created while the hierarchy is under oom, - * mem_cgroup_oom_lock() may not be called. Watch for underflow. + * Be careful about under_oom underflows becase a child memcg + * could have been added after mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom. */ spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock); for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg)