[Devel] Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

[Glauber Costa]

On 06/25/2012 10:06 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Again, nits.
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:15:23PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> +#define mem_cgroup_kmem_on 1
>> +bool __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(gfp_t gfp, void *handle, int order);
>> +void __mem_cgroup_commit_kmem_page(struct page *page, void *handle, int order);
>> +void __mem_cgroup_free_kmem_page(struct page *page, int order);
>> +#define is_kmem_tracked_alloc (gfp & __GFP_KMEMCG)
>
> Ugh... please do the following instead.
>
> static inline bool is_kmem_tracked_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
> {
> 	return gfp & __GFP_KMEMCG;
> }
>
>>   #else
>>   static inline void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
>>   {
>> @@ -416,6 +423,43 @@ static inline void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
>>   static inline void sock_release_memcg(struct sock *sk)
>>   {
>>   }
>> +
>> +#define mem_cgroup_kmem_on 0
>> +#define __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(a, b, c) false
>> +#define __mem_cgroup_free_kmem_page(a,b )
>> +#define __mem_cgroup_commit_kmem_page(a, b, c)
>> +#define is_kmem_tracked_alloc (false)
>
> I would prefer static inlines here too.  It's a bit more code in the
> header but leads to less surprises (e.g. arg evals w/ side effects or
> compiler warning about unused vars) and makes it easier to avoid
> cosmetic errors.
>
> Thanks.
>

Sure thing.