quoted

@@ -3834,11 +3866,15 @@ static inline void __cache_free(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void *objp,
  */
  void *kmem_cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
  {
-       void *ret = __cache_alloc(cachep, flags, __builtin_return_address(0));
+       void *ret;
+
+       rcu_read_lock();
+       cachep = mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(cachep, flags);
+       rcu_read_unlock();

Don't we need to check in_interrupt(), current, __GFP_NOFAIL every
time we call mem_cgroup_cgroup_get_kmem_cache()?

I would personally prefer if those checks were put inside
mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache() instead of having to check for every
caller.

in_interrupt() yes, __GFP_NOFAIL I don't think so.

__GFP_NOFAIL should lead to a res_counter_charge_nofail() in the end. 
The name similarity is no coincidence...

 From a code style PoV, it makes sense to bundle an in_interrupt() check 
here, but from a performance PoV, putting it in the callers can help us 
avoid the price of a function call.

But well, looking at the code, I see it is not there as well... =(

I plan to change memcontrol.h to look like this:

static __always_inline struct kmem_cache *
mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
{
         if (mem_cgroup_kmem_on && current->mm && !in_interrupt())
                 return __mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(cachep, gfp);
         return cachep;
}



--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>