On 2025/1/18 2:02, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 09:01:59AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 8:56 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 01:46:44AM +0000, Chen Ridong wrote: >>>> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> The only difference between 'lruvec_page_state' and >>>> 'lruvec_page_state_local' is that they read 'state' and 'state_local', >>>> respectively. Factor out an inner functions to make the code more concise. >>>> Do the same for reading 'memcg_page_stat' and 'memcg_events'. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> bool parameters make for poor readability at the callsites :( >>> >>> With the next patch moving most of the duplication to memcontrol-v1.c, >>> I think it's probably not worth refactoring this. >> >> Arguably the duplication would now be across two different files, >> making it more difficult to notice and keep the implementations in >> sync. > > Dependencies between the files is a bigger pain. E.g. try_charge() > being defined in memcontrol-v1.h makes memcontrol.c more difficult to > work with. That shared state also immediately bitrotted when charge > moving was removed and the last cgroup1 caller disappeared. > > The whole point of the cgroup1 split was to simplify cgroup2 code. The > tiny amount of duplication in this case doesn't warrant further > entanglement between the codebases. Thank you for your review. I agree with that. However, If I just move the 'local' functions to memcontrol-v1.c, I have to move some dependent declarations to the memcontrol-v1.h. E.g. struct memcg_vmstats, MEMCG_VMSTAT_SIZE and so on. Is this worth doing? Best regards, Ridong
