Messages in this thread | | | From | "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -V3 2/8] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension | Date | Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:51:50 +0530 |
| |
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:33:16 -0700, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:37:06 +0530 > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > +static int mem_cgroup_hugetlb_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > > +{ > > + int idx; > > + for (idx = 0; idx < hugetlb_max_hstate; idx++) { > > + if (memcg->hugepage[idx].usage > 0) > > + return memcg->hugepage[idx].usage; > > + } > > + return 0; > > +} > > Please document the function? Had you done this, I might have been > able to work out why the function bales out on the first used hugepage > size, but I can't :(
I guess the function is named wrongly. I will rename it to mem_cgroup_have_hugetlb_usage() in the next iteration ? The function will return (bool) 1 if it has any hugetlb resource usage.
> > This could have used for_each_hstate(), had that macro been better > designed (or updated). >
Can you explain this ?. for_each_hstate allows to iterate over different hstates. But here we need to look at different hugepage rescounter in memcg. I can still use for_each_hstate() and find the hstate index (h - hstates) and use that to index memcg rescounter array. But that would make it more complex ?
> Upon return this function coerces an unsigned long long into an "int". > We decided last week that more than 2^32 hugepages was not > inconceivable, so I guess that's a bug. >
-aneesh
| |