Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:35:45 +0200 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] memcg: refactor mem_cgroup_resize_limit() |
| |
[Sorry for a late reponse]
On Sun 04-06-17 14:18:07, Yu Zhao wrote: > mem_cgroup_resize_limit() and mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit() have > identical logics. Refactor code so we don't need to keep two pieces > of code that does same thing. > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> > Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
It is nice to see removal of the code duplication. I have one comment though
[...]
> @@ -2498,22 +2449,24 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > } > > mutex_lock(&memcg_limit_mutex); > - if (limit < memcg->memory.limit) { > + inverted = memsw ? limit < memcg->memory.limit : > + limit > memcg->memsw.limit; > + if (inverted) { > mutex_unlock(&memcg_limit_mutex); > ret = -EINVAL; > break; > }
This is just too ugly and hard to understand. inverted just doesn't give you a good clue what is going on. What do you think about something like
/* * Make sure that the new limit (memsw or hard limit) doesn't * break our basic invariant that memory.limit <= memsw.limit */ limits_invariant = memsw ? limit >= memcg->memory.limit : limit <= mmecg->memsw.limit; if (!limits_invariant) { mutex_unlock(&memcg_limit_mutex); ret = -EINVAL; break; }
with that feel free to add Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |