From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246C4280309 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 19:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ietj16 with SMTP id j16so66403636iet.0 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:03:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id co1si2896526igb.16.2015.07.16.16.03.59 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:03:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:03:58 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] memcg: export struct mem_cgroup Message-Id: <20150716160358.de3404c44ba29dc132032bbc@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20150716225639.GA11131@cmpxchg.org> References: <1436958885-18754-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <1436958885-18754-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20150715135711.1778a8c08f2ea9560a7c1f6f@linux-foundation.org> <20150716071948.GC3077@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20150716143433.e43554a19b1c89a8524020cb@linux-foundation.org> <20150716225639.GA11131@cmpxchg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Tejun Heo , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:56:39 -0400 Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:34:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:19:49 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I agree with Johannes who originally suggested to expose mem_cgroup that > > > it will allow for a better code later. > > > > Sure, but how *much* better? Are there a significant number of > > fastpath functions involved? > > > > From a maintainability/readability point of view, this is quite a bad > > patch. It exposes a *lot* of stuff to the whole world. We need to get > > a pretty good runtime benefit from doing this to ourselves. I don't > > think that saving 376 bytes on a fatconfig build is sufficient > > justification? > > It's not a performance issue for me. Some stuff is hard to read when > you have memcg functions with klunky names interrupting the code flow > to do something trivial to a struct mem_cgroup member, like > mem_cgroup_lruvec_online() and mem_cgroup_get_lru_size(). > > Maybe we can keep thresholds private and encapsulate the softlimit > tree stuff in mem_cgroup_per_zone into something private as well, as > this is not used - and unlikely to be used - outside of memcg proper. > > But otherwise, I think struct mem_cgroup should have mm-scope. Meaning a new mm/memcontrol.h? That's a bit better I suppose. -- 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