[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140507135352.3790c739ae331d1f6721f3de@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 13:53:52 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, <hannes@...xchg.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/2] memcg: get rid of memcg_create_cache_name
On Wed, 7 May 2014 14:45:16 +0400 Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com> wrote:
> @@ -3164,6 +3141,7 @@ void memcg_free_cache_params(struct kmem_cache *s)
> static void memcg_kmem_create_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> struct kmem_cache *root_cache)
> {
> + static char *memcg_name_buf; /* protected by memcg_slab_mutex */
> struct kmem_cache *cachep;
> int id;
>
> @@ -3179,7 +3157,14 @@ static void memcg_kmem_create_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> if (cache_from_memcg_idx(root_cache, id))
> return;
>
> - cachep = kmem_cache_create_memcg(memcg, root_cache);
> + if (!memcg_name_buf) {
> + memcg_name_buf = kmalloc(NAME_MAX + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!memcg_name_buf)
> + return;
> + }
Does this have any meaningful advantage over the simpler
static char memcg_name_buf[NAME_MAX + 1];
?
I guess it saves a scrap of memory if the machine never uses memcg's.
--
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