From 7a52d4d88ade00c99db007708bbcc5b9311f9ea4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Miaohe Lin Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:53:05 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] 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 --- mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index e9fa32a943c5..c04b57ccefe9 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) -- 2.11.0