From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424F6C282EC for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:57:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 38E2F280005; Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 31703280001; Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:57:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1B97D280005; Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:57:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF992280001 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289E2120358 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:57:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83217134406.30.BEF6FB7 Received: from out-174.mta1.migadu.com (out-174.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.174]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3737812000F for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=PLU8aOq0; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeel.butt@linux.dev designates 95.215.58.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeel.butt@linux.dev ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1741885061; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=q0dTyDDssE+C8dfx8AjB7s7C+L1jIDWH42HEZm4QLecCKor/hmEgiOMcR16D20qgGEPyxr +5i6/Nv7V3dg7u970U3oqqbmLa1mtmjvRHw9u//6Tz30R4XLIDjPyN/rlVsBHhvT3CYEEL nRbOBCc98+67y6xD4c+UABE67WFRLRQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.s=key1 header.b=PLU8aOq0; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeel.butt@linux.dev designates 95.215.58.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeel.butt@linux.dev ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1741885061; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=cunluyzmD6KXX2mF+Y32PBucIDowga0J/agUo3R0YNg=; b=F5KzJ/fI50J2YQ6DLwebQlGiQ4z45JcZJZ61VkysKTNrWgZmWnYAYxfdzO7/dm4xK/x2U8 iP9h4iE4cJEG+M+dpdRDjB+F8dzBzWMbfDu6wnbtiZN3VO2/8H+NkgwpxWc4R2H7/nivoG A6a1YkeXE4efJunwQSU7xd7KHBjCDUY= Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 09:57:34 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1741885059; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=cunluyzmD6KXX2mF+Y32PBucIDowga0J/agUo3R0YNg=; b=PLU8aOq0ym5Kz9KXu4HrCoJ/PlolLvTwD8IcZZw0XBgaFWJKxHy9PZGCRU/3Ltlb9J+fGM iUPViEWfWhgGPJAzVMhRg5CsuuWdnIiefRoGMOdW50LVBWhFbBLIEcYGF9jvxldq1chWAK Vo/3QNL1fpNVw6Iepcb4Wx5y/od8XqI= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Shakeel Butt To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song , Zi Yan , David Hildenbrand Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm: Simplify folio_memcg_charged() Message-ID: References: <20250313145856.4118428-1-willy@infradead.org> <20250313145856.4118428-5-willy@infradead.org> <20250313160348.GE1252169@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3737812000F X-Stat-Signature: qs1dbs47mynjjjr18n8r316j85dpxucw X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-HE-Tag: 1741885061-399636 X-HE-Meta: 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 r9THM5dH nELduDA8ZXFeTV1byBHCdn0fxS2fMb3ZvtyCGCw0WWF28hWbRrISR+FhgYyiPBeW4/8wSeTLdstCNE24QZpgePq/DPf34a+gpEdKZU9cDnX1W9JIdBbOx7mdOpVnIDVUhuCxoX0PrrqLy8IFEzGuFYKIio6eSRYgzM+m8Moe9VtElp74fYE7fVL1vImIxmoxr1dsuU+IQLtyCskx2Eg0WSCuH0qdIn+JiKHg8 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 04:15:38PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:03:48PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > static inline bool folio_memcg_charged(struct folio *folio) > > > { > > > - if (folio_memcg_kmem(folio)) > > > - return __folio_objcg(folio) != NULL; > > > - return __folio_memcg(folio) != NULL; > > > + return folio->memcg_data != 0; > > > > I suppose we lose a few DEBUG_VM asserts, but no doubt this function > > is unnecessarily complicated. > > I think we lose two -- folio_test_slab() and > memcg_data & MEMCG_DATA_OBJEXTS, both of which seem pretty low value. > Also, one could argue that asking "is this memory charged" should > return true if we ask it about a slab. So yeah, I didn't think they > were worth preserving. > With separete struct slab, no one should be calling folio_memcg_charged() with it, so I think these asserts were unnecessary. >