Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:28:00 +0400 | | From | Glauber Costa <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure |
| |
On 06/25/2012 10:06 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. >
Sure thing.
|  |