linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/memcg: apply add/del

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120530221707.GA25095@centos-guest>
Date:	Thu, 31 May 2012 06:17:07 +0800
From:	baozich <baozich@...il.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/memcg: apply add/del_page to lruvec

Hi Hugh,
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:02:28PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Take lruvec further: pass it instead of zone to add_page_to_lru_list()
> and del_page_from_lru_list(); and pagevec_lru_move_fn() pass lruvec
> down to its target functions.
> 
> This cleanup eliminates a swathe of cruft in memcontrol.c,
> including mem_cgroup_lru_add_list(), mem_cgroup_lru_del_list() and
> mem_cgroup_lru_move_lists() - which never actually touched the lists.
> 
> In their place, mem_cgroup_page_lruvec() to decide the lruvec,
> previously a side-effect of add, and mem_cgroup_update_lru_size()
> to maintain the lru_size stats.
I have a stupid question. I'm not sure whether there is reduplication
to put both "page" and "zone" parameter in mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(),
for I noticed that the "struct zone *zone" parameter are usually from 
page_zone(page) in most cases. I think that the semantics of this function
is to grab the lruvec the page belongs to. So will it be ok if we pass
only "page" as the parameter, which I think would be cleaner? Please
fix me if I missed something.

Thanks

Baozi
> 
> Whilst these are simplifications in their own right, the goal is to
> bring the evaluation of lruvec next to the spin_locking of the lrus,
> in preparation for a future patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/