lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC -mm v2 2/3] memcg, slab: merge memcg_{bind,release}_pages to memcg_{un}charge_slab
On 04/18/2014 05:44 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:04:48PM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>> Currently we have two pairs of kmemcg-related functions that are called
>> on slab alloc/free. The first is memcg_{bind,release}_pages that count
>> the total number of pages allocated on a kmem cache. The second is
>> memcg_{un}charge_slab that {un}charge slab pages to kmemcg resource
>> counter. Let's just merge them to keep the code clean.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 4 ++--
>> mm/memcontrol.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>> mm/slab.c | 2 --
>> mm/slab.h | 25 ++-----------------------
>> mm/slub.c | 2 --
>> 5 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> index 087a45314181..d38d190f4cec 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> @@ -506,8 +506,8 @@ void memcg_update_array_size(int num_groups);
>> struct kmem_cache *
>> __memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp);
>>
>> -int memcg_charge_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, gfp_t gfp, u64 size);
>> -void memcg_uncharge_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, u64 size);
>> +int __memcg_charge_slab(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp, int order);
>> +void __memcg_uncharge_slab(struct kmem_cache *cachep, int order);
>
> I like the patch overall, but why the __prefix and not just
> memcg_charge_slab() and memcg_uncharge_slab()?

Because I have memcg_{un}charge_slab (without underscores) in mm/slab.h.
Those functions are inline so that we only issue a function call if the
memcg_kmem_enabled static key is on and the cache is not a global one.

Actually I'm not sure if we really need such an optimization in slab
allocation/free paths, which are not very hot, but it wouldn't hurt,
would it?

Thanks.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-18 18:41    [W:0.043 / U:1.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site