Hi Suren,

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 02:56:27PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Johannes Weiner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

        /*
-        * The unsigned subtraction here gives an accurate distance
-        * across inactive_age overflows in most cases.
+        * Calculate the refault distance
         *
-        * There is a special case: usually, shadow entries have a
-        * short lifetime and are either refaulted or reclaimed along
-        * with the inode before they get too old.  But it is not
-        * impossible for the inactive_age to lap a shadow entry in
-        * the field, which can then can result in a false small
-        * refault distance, leading to a false activation should this
-        * old entry actually refault again.  However, earlier kernels
-        * used to deactivate unconditionally with *every* reclaim
-        * invocation for the longest time, so the occasional
-        * inappropriate activation leading to pressure on the active
-        * list is not a problem.
+        * The unsigned subtraction here gives an accurate distance
+        * across inactive_age overflows in most cases. There is a
+        * special case: usually, shadow entries have a short lifetime
+        * and are either refaulted or reclaimed along with the inode
+        * before they get too old.  But it is not impossible for the
+        * inactive_age to lap a shadow entry in the field, which can
+        * then can result in a false small refault distance, leading

"which can then can" - please remove one of the "can".

Good catch, will fix.