Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:07:07 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] per-cgroup tcp memory pressure |
| |
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:39:03 -0200 Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2011 07:35 PM, David Miller wrote: > > TCP specific stuff in mm/memcontrol.c, at best that's not nice at all. > > How crucial is that? Thing is that as far as I am concerned, all the > memcg people really want the inner layout of struct mem_cgroup to be > private to memcontrol.c
This is just because memcg is just related to memory management and I don't want it be wide spreaded, 'struct mem_cgroup' has been changed often.
But I don't like to have TCP code in memcgroup.c.
New idea is welcome.
> This means that at some point, we need to have > at least a wrapper in memcontrol.c that is able to calculate the offset > of the tcp structure, and since most functions are actually quite > simple, that would just make us do more function calls. > > Well, an alternative to that would be to use a void pointer in the newly > added struct cg_proto to an already parsed memcg-related field > (in this case tcp_memcontrol), that would be passed to the functions > instead of the whole memcg structure. Do you think this would be > preferable ? > like this ?
struct mem_cgroup_sub_controls { struct mem_cgroup *mem; union { struct tcp_mem_control tcp; } data; }; /* for loosely coupled controls for memcg */ struct memcg_sub_controls_function { struct memcg_sub_controls (*create)(struct mem_cgroup *); struct memcg_sub_controls (*destroy)(struct mem_cgroup *); }
int register_memcg_sub_controls(char *name, struct memcg_sub_controls_function *abis);
struct mem_cgroup { ..... ..... /* Root memcg will have no sub_controls! */ struct memcg_sub_controls *sub_controls[NR_MEMCG_SUB_CONTROLS]; }
Maybe some functions should be exported.
Thanks, -Kame
| |