[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0000013abd91e573-0ea881ef-538b-40dd-8056-9532812eb165-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:03:06 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/29] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> +static inline bool memcg_kmem_enabled(void)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> +
Maybe it would be better to do this in the same way that NUMA_BUILD was
done in kernel.h?
> +static __always_inline bool
> +memcg_kmem_newpage_charge(gfp_t gfp, struct mem_cgroup **memcg, int order)
> +{
> + if (!memcg_kmem_enabled())
> + return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * __GFP_NOFAIL allocations will move on even if charging is not
> + * possible. Therefore we don't even try, and have this allocation
> + * unaccounted. We could in theory charge it with
> + * res_counter_charge_nofail, but we hope those allocations are rare,
> + * and won't be worth the trouble.
> + */
> + if (!(gfp & __GFP_KMEMCG) || (gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL))
> + return true;
> + if (in_interrupt() || (!current->mm) || (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
> + return true;
This type of check is repeatedly occurring in various subsystems. Could we
get a function (maybe inline) to do this check?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists