On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:29:47PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:15 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:56:32AM -0800, Greg Thelen wrote: > > > + int cpu; > > > + > > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) > > > + x += per_cpu_ptr(memcg->stat_cpu, cpu)->count[idx]; > > > + if (x < 0) > > > + x = 0; > > > +#endif > > > + return x; > > > +} > > > > Also, isn't it worth it to generalize memcg_page_state() instead? > > By adding an bool exact argument? I believe dirty balance is not > > the only place, where we need a better accuracy. > > Nod. I'll provide a more general version of memcg_page_state(). I'm > testing updated (forthcoming v2) patch set now with feedback from > Andrew and Roman. I'm working on a patch series that reworks the memcg_page_state() API and by far the most callers do NOT need the exact numbers. So I'd ask to please keep this a separate function so I don't have to update tens of callsites to pass "false". Thanks!
