From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389D66B0036 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id l18so13171399wgh.5 for ; Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:03:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i2si12410656wja.155.2014.02.04.08.03.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:03:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 17:03:36 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] memcg, slab: separate memcg vs root cache creation paths Message-ID: <20140204160336.GL4890@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <81a403327163facea2b4c7b720fdc0ef62dd1dbf.1391441746.git.vdavydov@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <81a403327163facea2b4c7b720fdc0ef62dd1dbf.1391441746.git.vdavydov@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, penberg@kernel.org, cl@linux.com, glommer@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org On Mon 03-02-14 19:54:38, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Memcg-awareness turned kmem_cache_create() into a dirty interweaving of > memcg-only and except-for-memcg calls. To clean this up, let's create a > separate function handling memcg caches creation. Although this will > result in the two functions having several hunks of practically the same > code, I guess this is the case when readability fully covers the cost of > code duplication. I don't know. The code is apparently cleaner because calling a function with NULL memcg just to go via several if (memcg) branches is ugly as hell. But having a duplicated function like this calls for a problem later. Would it be possible to split kmem_cache_create into memcg independant part and do the rest in a single memcg branch? > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov > --- > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 14 ++--- > include/linux/slab.h | 9 ++- > mm/memcontrol.c | 16 ++---- > mm/slab_common.c | 130 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 4 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > index 84e4801fc36c..de79a9617e09 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > @@ -500,8 +500,8 @@ int memcg_cache_id(struct mem_cgroup *memcg); > > char *memcg_create_cache_name(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > struct kmem_cache *root_cache); > -int memcg_alloc_cache_params(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct kmem_cache *s, > - struct kmem_cache *root_cache); > +int memcg_alloc_cache_params(struct kmem_cache *s, > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct kmem_cache *root_cache); Why is the parameters ordering changed? It really doesn't help review the patch. Also what does `s' stand for and can we use a more descriptive name, please? [...] -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org