On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:39 PM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > memcg as a candidate for the global limit reclaim.
> >
> > Very minor nitpick. This patch can fold with the later patch that uses
> > it. That makes the review easier, no need to cross reference different
> > patches. It will also make it harder to introduce API that nobody
> > uses.
>
> I don't have a strong preference one way or the other :) Probably not
> worth the churn tho.
Squashing a patch is very easy. If you are refreshing a new series, it
is worthwhile to do it. I notice on the other thread Yosry pointed out
you did not use the function "mem_cgroup_tryget_online" in patch 3,
that is exactly the situation my suggestion is trying to prevent.
If you don't have a strong preference, it sounds like you should squash it.
Chris
>
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > index 7bdcf3020d7a..2bd7d14ace78 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > > @@ -821,6 +821,11 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_tryget(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > return !memcg || css_tryget(&memcg->css);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline bool mem_cgroup_tryget_online(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > +{
> > > + return !memcg || css_tryget_online(&memcg->css);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static inline void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > {
> > > if (memcg)
> > > @@ -1349,6 +1354,11 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_tryget(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > return true;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline bool mem_cgroup_tryget_online(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > +{
> > > + return true;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static inline void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > {
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
>
