include/linux/mmzone.h | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Some comments of node_stat_item are not that helpful and even confusing,
so remove them. No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
---
include/linux/mmzone.h | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
index 4106fbc5b4b3..844ed29cc260 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
@@ -154,10 +154,10 @@ enum zone_stat_item {
enum node_stat_item {
NR_LRU_BASE,
NR_INACTIVE_ANON = NR_LRU_BASE, /* must match order of LRU_[IN]ACTIVE */
- NR_ACTIVE_ANON, /* " " " " " */
- NR_INACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */
- NR_ACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */
- NR_UNEVICTABLE, /* " " " " " */
+ NR_ACTIVE_ANON,
+ NR_INACTIVE_FILE,
+ NR_ACTIVE_FILE,
+ NR_UNEVICTABLE,
NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B,
NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B,
NR_ISOLATED_ANON, /* Temporary isolated pages from anon lru */
--
2.33.0On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 07:49:15PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> Some comments of node_stat_item are not that helpful and even confusing,
> so remove them. No functional change intended.
No, that's very useful and important. Why does it confuse you?
> enum node_stat_item {
> NR_LRU_BASE,
> NR_INACTIVE_ANON = NR_LRU_BASE, /* must match order of LRU_[IN]ACTIVE */
> - NR_ACTIVE_ANON, /* " " " " " */
> - NR_INACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */
> - NR_ACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */
> - NR_UNEVICTABLE, /* " " " " " */
> + NR_ACTIVE_ANON,
> + NR_INACTIVE_FILE,
> + NR_ACTIVE_FILE,
> + NR_UNEVICTABLE,
> NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE_B,
> NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE_B,
> NR_ISOLATED_ANON, /* Temporary isolated pages from anon lru */
> --
> 2.33.0
>
>
On 2023/7/13 20:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 07:49:15PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> Some comments of node_stat_item are not that helpful and even confusing, >> so remove them. No functional change intended. > > No, that's very useful and important. Why does it confuse you? Thanks for your quick respond. I just can't figure out what these comments want to tell. Could you help explain these? Thanks.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:18:29PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2023/7/13 20:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 07:49:15PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> >> Some comments of node_stat_item are not that helpful and even confusing,
> >> so remove them. No functional change intended.
> >
> > No, that's very useful and important. Why does it confuse you?
>
> Thanks for your quick respond.
>
> I just can't figure out what these comments want to tell. Could you help explain these?
Don't snip the thing you want explained to you!
NR_INACTIVE_ANON = NR_LRU_BASE, /* must match order of LRU_[IN]ACTIVE */
- NR_ACTIVE_ANON, /* " " " " " */
- NR_INACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */
- NR_ACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */
- NR_UNEVICTABLE, /* " " " " " */
+ NR_ACTIVE_ANON,
+ NR_INACTIVE_FILE,
+ NR_ACTIVE_FILE,
+ NR_UNEVICTABLE,
What this is communicating to me is that these five items
(NR_INACTIVE_ANON to NR_UNEVICTABLE) must stay in the same order with
LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE. By removing the ditto-marks from the
subsequent four lines, you've made the comment say that this one line
must stay in the same order as LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE ... which
makes no sense at all.
On 2023/7/13 20:31, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:18:29PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> On 2023/7/13 20:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 07:49:15PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >>>> Some comments of node_stat_item are not that helpful and even confusing, >>>> so remove them. No functional change intended. >>> >>> No, that's very useful and important. Why does it confuse you? >> >> Thanks for your quick respond. >> >> I just can't figure out what these comments want to tell. Could you help explain these? > > Don't snip the thing you want explained to you! > > NR_INACTIVE_ANON = NR_LRU_BASE, /* must match order of LRU_[IN]ACTIVE */ > - NR_ACTIVE_ANON, /* " " " " " */ > - NR_INACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */ > - NR_ACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */ > - NR_UNEVICTABLE, /* " " " " " */ > + NR_ACTIVE_ANON, > + NR_INACTIVE_FILE, > + NR_ACTIVE_FILE, > + NR_UNEVICTABLE, > > What this is communicating to me is that these five items > (NR_INACTIVE_ANON to NR_UNEVICTABLE) must stay in the same order with > LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE. By removing the ditto-marks from the > subsequent four lines, you've made the comment say that this one line > must stay in the same order as LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE ... which > makes no sense at all. I see. Many thanks for your kind explanation. :)
On 7/13/23 18:01, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:18:29PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> On 2023/7/13 20:10, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 07:49:15PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >>>> Some comments of node_stat_item are not that helpful and even confusing, >>>> so remove them. No functional change intended. >>> >>> No, that's very useful and important. Why does it confuse you? >> >> Thanks for your quick respond. >> >> I just can't figure out what these comments want to tell. Could you help explain these? > > Don't snip the thing you want explained to you! > > NR_INACTIVE_ANON = NR_LRU_BASE, /* must match order of LRU_[IN]ACTIVE */ > - NR_ACTIVE_ANON, /* " " " " " */ > - NR_INACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */ > - NR_ACTIVE_FILE, /* " " " " " */ > - NR_UNEVICTABLE, /* " " " " " */ > + NR_ACTIVE_ANON, > + NR_INACTIVE_FILE, > + NR_ACTIVE_FILE, > + NR_UNEVICTABLE, > > What this is communicating to me is that these five items > (NR_INACTIVE_ANON to NR_UNEVICTABLE) must stay in the same order with > LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE. By removing the ditto-marks from the > subsequent four lines, you've made the comment say that this one line > must stay in the same order as LRU_INACTIVE and LRU_ACTIVE ... which > makes no sense at all. Just wondering - would it be better to repeat these comments in words for each line than use "ditto-marks" ?
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.