Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

[Glauber Costa]

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.

--
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/