On 02/04/2014 08:03 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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?

May be, something like the patch attached?

>  
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
>> ---
>>  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.

Oh, this is because seeing something like

memcg_alloc_cache_params(NULL, s, NULL);

hurts my brain :-) I prefer to have NULLs in the end.

> Also what does `s' stand for and can we use a more
> descriptive name, please?

Yes, we can call it `cachep', but it would be too long :-/

`s' is the common name for a kmem_cache throughout mm/sl[au]b.c so I
guess it fits here. However, this function certainly needs a comment - I
guess I'll do it along with swapping the function parameters in a
separate patch.

Thanks.