[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140312151924.GH11831@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:19:24 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/8] mm: memcg: inline mem_cgroup_charge_common()
On Wed 12-03-14 10:53:00, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:52:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 11-03-14 21:28:29, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > [...]
> > > @@ -3919,20 +3919,21 @@ out:
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/*
> > > - * Charge the memory controller for page usage.
> > > - * Return
> > > - * 0 if the charge was successful
> > > - * < 0 if the cgroup is over its limit
> > > - */
> > > -static int mem_cgroup_charge_common(struct page *page, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > - gfp_t gfp_mask, enum charge_type ctype)
> > > +int mem_cgroup_newpage_charge(struct page *page,
> > > + struct mm_struct *mm, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >
> > s/mem_cgroup_newpage_charge/mem_cgroup_anon_charge/ ?
> >
> > Would be a better name? The patch would be bigger but the name more
> > apparent...
>
> I wouldn't be opposed to fixing those names at all, but I think that
> is out of the scope of this patch.
OK.
> Want to send one?
will do
> mem_cgroup_charge_anon() would be a good name, but then we should also
> rename mem_cgroup_cache_charge() to mem_cgroup_charge_file() to match.
Yes that sounds good to me.
> Or charge_private() vs. charge_shared()...
anon vs. file is easier to follow but I do not have any preference here.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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