On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 02:59:50PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 11:27:39AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:46:38AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 05:27:07PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * set_page_memcg - associate a page with a memory cgroup
> > > > + * @page: a pointer to the page struct
> > > > + * @memcg: a pointer to the memory cgroup
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Associates a page with a memory cgroup.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline void set_page_memcg(struct page *page, struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > > +{
> > > > + VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageSlab(page), page);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Please, refer to page_memcg()'s description for the page and memcg
> > > > + * binding stability requirements.
> > > > + */
> > > > + page->memcg_data = (unsigned long)memcg;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Please delete and inline this as per previous feedback, thanks.
> >
> > Why it's better?
> > It's ok for set_page_memcg(), but obviously worse for set_page_objcgs():
> > it was nice to have all bit magic in one place, in few helper functions.
> > And now it spills into several places. What's the win?
>
> set_page_objcgs() is a worthwhile abstraction because it includes the
> synchronization primitives that make it safe to use wrt
> page_objcgs(). They encapsulate the cmpxchg and the READ_ONCE().
>
> set_page_memcg() doesn't do any synchronization and relies fully on
> the contextual locking. The name implies that it includes things to
> make it safe wrt page_memcg(), which isn't true at all. It's a long
> and misleading name for '='.
>
> Btw, I really don't mind having this discussion, but please don't send
> revisions that silently ignore feedback you don't agree with.
I'm not ignoring: I thought you was looking to remove clear_page_* functions,
but it wasn't clear you want eliminate set_page_memcg() function. Please, when
you asking for some "style" changes, please, provide some rationale, it's way
less obvious than you think, what exactly you don't like in the proposed version.
Thanks.
