Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure
From: Tejun Heo <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-25 18:06:25
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
Again, nits. On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:15:23PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
+#define mem_cgroup_kmem_on 1 +bool __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(gfp_t gfp, void *handle, int order); +void __mem_cgroup_commit_kmem_page(struct page *page, void *handle, int order); +void __mem_cgroup_free_kmem_page(struct page *page, int order); +#define is_kmem_tracked_alloc (gfp & __GFP_KMEMCG)
Ugh... please do the following instead.
static inline bool is_kmem_tracked_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
{
return gfp & __GFP_KMEMCG;
}
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
#else static inline void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk) {@@ -416,6 +423,43 @@ static inline void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk) static inline void sock_release_memcg(struct sock *sk) { } + +#define mem_cgroup_kmem_on 0 +#define __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(a, b, c) false +#define __mem_cgroup_free_kmem_page(a,b ) +#define __mem_cgroup_commit_kmem_page(a, b, c) +#define is_kmem_tracked_alloc (false)
I would prefer static inlines here too. It's a bit more code in the header but leads to less surprises (e.g. arg evals w/ side effects or compiler warning about unused vars) and makes it easier to avoid cosmetic errors. Thanks. -- tejun