Re: [PATCH 19/23] slab: per-memcg accounting of slab caches

[Glauber Costa]

> > @@ -3834,11 +3866,15 @@ static inline void __cache_free(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void *objp,
> >   */
> >   void *kmem_cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
> >   {
> > -       void *ret = __cache_alloc(cachep, flags, __builtin_return_address(0));
> > +       void *ret;
> > +
> > +       rcu_read_lock();
> > +       cachep = mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(cachep, flags);
> > +       rcu_read_unlock();
>
> Don't we need to check in_interrupt(), current, __GFP_NOFAIL every
> time we call mem_cgroup_cgroup_get_kmem_cache()?
>
> I would personally prefer if those checks were put inside
> mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache() instead of having to check for every
> caller.

in_interrupt() yes, __GFP_NOFAIL I don't think so.

__GFP_NOFAIL should lead to a res_counter_charge_nofail() in the end. 
The name similarity is no coincidence...

From a code style PoV, it makes sense to bundle an in_interrupt() check 
here, but from a performance PoV, putting it in the callers can help us 
avoid the price of a function call.

But well, looking at the code, I see it is not there as well... =(

I plan to change memcontrol.h to look like this:

static __always_inline struct kmem_cache *
mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
{
        if (mem_cgroup_kmem_on && current->mm && !in_interrupt())
                return __mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(cachep, gfp);
        return cachep;
}



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/