Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1297145
| From | Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: memcontrol: reign in the CONFIG space madness |
| Date | 2015-12-23 00:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qIEH8-233-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <qEC1c-q7-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qEVnb-4xa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qEW9A-542-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qIEnL-1Tq-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qIEnL-1Tq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 03:15:27PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:11:38 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > What I have is
>
> And after a bit of reject resolution in
> mm-memcontrol-clean-up-alloc-online-offline-free-functions.patch we
> have
>
>
> static void mem_cgroup_css_free(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
> {
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(css);
>
> if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && !cgroup_memory_nosocket)
> static_branch_dec(&memcg_sockets_enabled_key);
>
> vmpressure_cleanup(&memcg->vmpressure);
> cancel_work_sync(&memcg->high_work);
> mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(memcg);
> memcg_free_kmem(memcg);
>
> if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && memcg->tcpmem_active)
> static_branch_dec(&memcg_sockets_enabled_key);
>
> mem_cgroup_free(memcg);
> }
>
> code looks a bit strange. Can we move the static_branch_dec's together
> and run cgroup_subsys_on_dfl just once?
Thanks for fixing it up. I think we can at least put the branches next
to each other. Here is what I have in my local tree:
static void mem_cgroup_css_free(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
{
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(css);
if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && !cgroup_memory_nosocket)
static_branch_dec(&memcg_sockets_enabled_key);
if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys) && memcg->tcpmem_active)
static_branch_dec(&memcg_sockets_enabled_key);
vmpressure_cleanup(&memcg->vmpressure);
cancel_work_sync(&memcg->high_work);
mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(memcg);
memcg_free_kmem(memcg);
mem_cgroup_free(memcg);
}
However, I don't think turning it into this would be an improvement:
if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) {
if (!cgroup_memory_nosocket)
static_branch_dec(&memcg_sockets_enabled_key);
} else if (memcg->tcpmem_active) {
static_branch_dec(&memcg_sockets_enabled_key);
}
Plus, I'm a little worried that conflating cgroup and cgroup2 blocks
will get us into trouble. Yeah, that code looks a little unusual, but
I can't help but think it's easier to follow the code flow for one
particular mode when the jump labels are always explicit. Then the
brain can easily pattern-match and ignore blocks of the other mode.
It doesn't work the same when we hide keywords in implicit else ifs.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: memcontrol: reign in the CONFIG space madness Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@virtuozzo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: memcontrol: reign in the CONFIG space madness Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2015-12-12 18:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: memcontrol: reign in the CONFIG space madness Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-12-23 00:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: memcontrol: reign in the CONFIG space madness Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-12-23 00:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: memcontrol: reign in the CONFIG space madness Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2015-12-23 00:40 +0100
csiph-web