[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c8744df31379821d269c8e654843471545815c01.1415046910.git.vdavydov@parallels.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 23:59:44 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH -mm 6/8] memcg: introduce memcg_kmem_should_charge helper
We use the same set of checks in both memcg_kmem_newpage_charge and
memcg_kmem_get_cache, and I need it in yet another function, which will
be introduced by one of the following patches. So let's introduce a
helper function for it.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index 617652712da8..224c045fd37f 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -416,6 +416,26 @@ void memcg_update_array_size(int num_groups);
struct kmem_cache *
__memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp);
+static __always_inline bool memcg_kmem_should_charge(gfp_t gfp)
+{
+ /*
+ * __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 forcibly, but we hope
+ * those allocations are rare, and won't be worth the trouble.
+ */
+ if (gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL)
+ return false;
+ if (in_interrupt())
+ return false;
+ if (!current->mm || (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
+ return false;
+ /* If the test is dying, just let it go. */
+ if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(current)))
+ return false;
+ return true;
+}
+
/**
* memcg_kmem_newpage_charge: verify if a new kmem allocation is allowed.
* @gfp: the gfp allocation flags.
@@ -433,22 +453,8 @@ 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 forcibly, but we hope
- * those allocations are rare, and won't be worth the trouble.
- */
- if (gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL)
- return true;
- if (in_interrupt() || (!current->mm) || (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
- return true;
-
- /* If the test is dying, just let it go. */
- if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(current)))
+ if (!memcg_kmem_should_charge(gfp))
return true;
-
return __memcg_kmem_newpage_charge(gfp, memcg, order);
}
@@ -491,13 +497,8 @@ memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
{
if (!memcg_kmem_enabled())
return cachep;
- if (gfp & __GFP_NOFAIL)
- return cachep;
- if (in_interrupt() || (!current->mm) || (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
- return cachep;
- if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(current)))
+ if (!memcg_kmem_should_charge(gfp))
return cachep;
-
return __memcg_kmem_get_cache(cachep, gfp);
}
#else
--
1.7.10.4
--
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