On Mon, 2 Jan 2012, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sat 31-12-11 23:30:38, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > I never understood why we need a MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT(mz, idx) macro > > to obscure the LRU counts. For easier searching? So call it > > lru_size rather than bare count (lru_length sounds better, but > > would be wrong, since each huge page raises lru_size hugely). > > lru_size is unique at the global scope at the moment but this might > change in the future. MEM_CGROUP_ZSTAT should be unique and so easier > to grep or cscope. > On the other hand lru_size sounds like a better name so I am all for > renaming but we should make sure that we somehow get memcg into it > (either to macro MEM_CGROUP_LRU_SIZE or get rid of macro and have > memcg_lru_size field name - which is ugly long). I do disagree. You're asking to introduce artificial differences, whereas generally we're trying to minimize the differences between global and memcg. I'm happy with the way mem_cgroup_zone_lruvec(), for example, returns a pointer to the relevant structure, whether it's global or per-memcg, and we then work with the contents of that structure, whichever it is: lruvec in each case, not global_lruvec in one case and memcg_lruvec in the other. And certainly not GLOBAL_ZLRUVEC or MEM_CGROUP_ZLRUVEC! Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>