On Tue 20-11-12 13:49:32, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:44:34 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

While profiling numa/core v16 with cgroup_disable=memory on the command 
line, I noticed mem_cgroup_count_vm_event() still showed up as high as 
0.60% in perftop.

This occurs because the function is called extremely often even when memcg 
is disabled.

To fix this, inline the check for mem_cgroup_disabled() so we avoid the 
unnecessary function call if memcg is disabled.

...

diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h

@@ -181,7 +181,14 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_soft_limit_reclaim(struct zone *zone, int order,
 						gfp_t gfp_mask,
 						unsigned long *total_scanned);
 
-void mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct mm_struct *mm, enum vm_event_item idx);
+void __mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct mm_struct *mm, enum vm_event_item idx);
+static inline void mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct mm_struct *mm,
+					     enum vm_event_item idx)
+{
+	if (mem_cgroup_disabled() || !mm)
+		return;
+	__mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(mm, idx);
+}

Does the !mm case occur frequently enough to justify inlining it, or
should that test remain out-of-line?

Now that you've asked about it I started looking around and I cannot see
how mm can ever be NULL. The condition is there since the very beginning
(456f998e memcg: add the pagefault count into memcg stats) but all the
callers are page fault handlers and those shouldn't have mm==NULL.
Or is there anything obvious I am missing?

Ying, the whole thread starts https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/19/545 but
the primary question is why we need !mm test for mem_cgroup_count_vm_event
at all.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs