On May 1, 2022, at 6:44 AM, Vasily Averin [off-list ref] wrote:

On 4/28/22 01:47, Shakeel Butt wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:43 PM Vasily Averin [off-list ref] wrote:

On 4/27/22 18:06, Shakeel Butt wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:22 AM Michal Koutný [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:23:32PM -0700, Shakeel Butt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

+static inline struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_obj(void *p)
+{
+       struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
+

Do we need memcg_kmem_enabled() check here or maybe
mem_cgroup_from_obj() should be doing memcg_kmem_enabled() instead of
mem_cgroup_disabled() as we can have "cgroup.memory=nokmem" boot
param.

Shakeel, unfortunately I'm not ready to answer this question right now.
I even did not noticed that memcg_kmem_enabled() and mem_cgroup_disabled()
have a different nature.
If you have no objections I'm going to keep this place as is and investigate
this question later.

Patch is good as is. Just add the documentation to the functions in
the next version and you can keep the ACKs.

I noticed that the kernel already has a function get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(),
the name of which is very similar to my new function get_mem_cgroup_from_obj().
Maybe it's better to rename my function to get_mem_cgroup_from_ptr()?

I don’t think it’s a problem: objcg is a widely used abbreviation and in my opinion is different enough from obj. I’d keep it for the consistency with the mem_cgroup_from_obj().

Thanks!