| Date | Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:06:19 -0700 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure |
| |
Again, nits.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:15:23PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > +#define mem_cgroup_kmem_on 1 > +bool __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(gfp_t gfp, void *handle, int order); > +void __mem_cgroup_commit_kmem_page(struct page *page, void *handle, int order); > +void __mem_cgroup_free_kmem_page(struct page *page, int order); > +#define is_kmem_tracked_alloc (gfp & __GFP_KMEMCG)
Ugh... please do the following instead.
static inline bool is_kmem_tracked_alloc(gfp_t gfp) { return gfp & __GFP_KMEMCG; }
> #else > static inline void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk) > { > @@ -416,6 +423,43 @@ static inline void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk) > static inline void sock_release_memcg(struct sock *sk) > { > } > + > +#define mem_cgroup_kmem_on 0 > +#define __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(a, b, c) false > +#define __mem_cgroup_free_kmem_page(a,b ) > +#define __mem_cgroup_commit_kmem_page(a, b, c) > +#define is_kmem_tracked_alloc (false)
I would prefer static inlines here too. It's a bit more code in the header but leads to less surprises (e.g. arg evals w/ side effects or compiler warning about unused vars) and makes it easier to avoid cosmetic errors.
Thanks.
-- tejun
|