Re: [PATCH v3 13/18] mm/memcg: Add folio_memcg_lock() and folio_memcg_unlock()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:32:02AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-06-21 05:00:29, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > These are the folio equivalents of lock_page_memcg() and
> > unlock_page_memcg().  Reimplement them as wrappers.
> 
> Is there any reason why you haven't followed the same approach as for
> the previous patches. I mean callers can call page_folio and then
> lock_page_memcg wrapper shouldn't be really needed.

At this point in the patch series there are ~20 places which call
lock_page_memcg().  I think it makes more sense to leave the wrapper
in place, and then we can remove the wrapper once all/most of these
places are converted to use folios.  There are another 5 conversions
already in the patch series, eg here:

https://git.infradead.org/users/willy/pagecache.git/commitdiff/a41c942c8e4b41df30be128ef6998ff1849fa36a

> I do not really want to be annoying here but I have to say that I like
> the conversion by previous patches much better than this wrapper
> approach as mentioned during the previous review already. If you have
> some reasons to stick with this approach for this particular case then
> make it explicit in the changelog.

OK, I can point to the number of callers as a reason to keep the
wrappers in place.  I intended to just do the conversion here, but
seeing the number of callers made me reconsider.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux