[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220427122232.GA9823@blackbody.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:22:32 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, kernel@...nvz.org,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v4] net: set proper memcg for net_init hooks
allocations
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:23:32PM -0700, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > +static inline struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_obj(void *p)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > +
>
> Do we need memcg_kmem_enabled() check here or maybe
> mem_cgroup_from_obj() should be doing memcg_kmem_enabled() instead of
> mem_cgroup_disabled() as we can have "cgroup.memory=nokmem" boot
> param.
I reckon such a guard is on the charge side and readers should treat
NULL and root_mem_group equally. Or is there a case when these two are
different?
(I can see it's different semantics when stored in current->active_memcg
(and active_memcg() getter) but for such "outer" callers like here it
seems equal.)
Regards,
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists