On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 02:06:31PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> index 4f02fe83537e..f63eb5596c35 100644
> >> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> >> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> >> @@ -172,6 +172,22 @@ static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
> >> #if defined(CONFIG_MEMCG) && !defined(CONFIG_SLOB)
> >> static DEFINE_IDR(shrinkers_id_idr);
> >>
> >> +static int expand_shrinker_id(int id)
> >> +{
> >> + if (likely(id < shrinkers_max_nr))
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + id = shrinkers_max_nr * 2;
> >> + if (id == 0)
> >> + id = BITS_PER_BYTE;
> >> +
> >> + if (expand_shrinker_maps(shrinkers_max_nr, id))
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + shrinkers_max_nr = id;
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > I think this function should live in memcontrol.c and shrinkers_max_nr
> > should be private to memcontrol.c.
>
> It can't be private as shrink_slab_memcg() uses this value to get the last bit of bitmap.
Yeah, you're right, sorry I haven't noticed that.
What about moving id allocation to this function as well? IMHO it would
make the code flow a little bit more straightforward. I mean,
alloc_shrinker_id()
{
int id = idr_alloc(...)
if (id >= memcg_nr_shrinker_ids)
memcg_grow_shrinker_map(...)
return id;
}
>
> >> static int add_memcg_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> >> {
> >> int id, ret;
> >> @@ -180,6 +196,11 @@ static int add_memcg_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker)
> >> ret = id = idr_alloc(&shrinkers_id_idr, shrinker, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> if (ret < 0)
> >> goto unlock;
> >> + ret = expand_shrinker_id(id);
> >> + if (ret < 0) {
> >> + idr_remove(&shrinkers_id_idr, id);
> >> + goto unlock;
> >> + }
> >> shrinker->id = id;
> >> ret = 0;
> >> unlock:
> >>
