linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 next 4/4] memcg: factor out stat(event)/stat_local(event

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <csuymdtyrj2tch2m4lhn5hz5aeojhzvixepxydvphvawqsn5ky@dx4o25o4wzlw>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:57:35 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	mhocko@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, yosryahmed@...gle.com, muchun.song@...ux.dev, 
	davidf@...eo.com, vbabka@...e.cz, mkoutny@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, chenridong@...wei.com, 
	wangweiyang2@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 next 4/4] memcg: factor out
 stat(event)/stat_local(event_local) reading functions

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 06:45:20PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:25:19PM +0000, Chen Ridong wrote:
> > From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
> > 
> > The only difference between 'lruvec_page_state' and
> > 'lruvec_page_state_local' is that they read 'state' and 'state_local',
> > respectively. Factor out an inner functions to make the code more concise.
> > Do the same for reading 'memcg_page_stat' and 'memcg_events'.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/memcontrol.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index b10e0a8f3375..14541610cad0 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -375,7 +375,8 @@ struct lruvec_stats {
> >  	long state_pending[NR_MEMCG_NODE_STAT_ITEMS];
> >  };
> >  
> > -unsigned long lruvec_page_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum node_stat_item idx)
> > +static unsigned long __lruvec_page_state(struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > +		enum node_stat_item idx, bool local)
> >  {
> >  	struct mem_cgroup_per_node *pn;
> >  	long x;
> > @@ -389,7 +390,8 @@ unsigned long lruvec_page_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum node_stat_item idx)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> >  	pn = container_of(lruvec, struct mem_cgroup_per_node, lruvec);
> > -	x = READ_ONCE(pn->lruvec_stats->state[i]);
> > +	x = local ? READ_ONCE(pn->lruvec_stats->state_local[i]) :
> > +		    READ_ONCE(pn->lruvec_stats->state[i]);
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >  	if (x < 0)
> >  		x = 0;
> > @@ -397,27 +399,16 @@ unsigned long lruvec_page_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum node_stat_item idx)
> >  	return x;
> >  }
> >  
> > +
> > +unsigned long lruvec_page_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum node_stat_item idx)
> > +{
> > +	return __lruvec_page_state(lruvec, idx, false);
> > +}
> 
> I'd move these wrapper function definitions to memcontrol.h and make them
> static inline.

+1

> 
> Other than that, lgtm.
> 
> Thank you!