On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:51:50 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:33:16 -0700, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:37:06 +0530 > > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > +static int mem_cgroup_hugetlb_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) > > > +{ > > > + int idx; > > > + for (idx = 0; idx < hugetlb_max_hstate; idx++) { > > > + if (memcg->hugepage[idx].usage > 0) > > > + return memcg->hugepage[idx].usage; > > > + } > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > > Please document the function? Had you done this, I might have been > > able to work out why the function bales out on the first used hugepage > > size, but I can't :( > > I guess the function is named wrongly. I will rename it to > mem_cgroup_have_hugetlb_usage() in the next iteration ? The function > will return (bool) 1 if it has any hugetlb resource usage. > > > > > This could have used for_each_hstate(), had that macro been better > > designed (or updated). > > > > Can you explain this ?. for_each_hstate allows to iterate over > different hstates. But here we need to look at different hugepage > rescounter in memcg. I can still use for_each_hstate() and find the > hstate index (h - hstates) and use that to index memcg rescounter > array. But that would make it more complex ? If the for_each_hstate() macro took an additional arg which holds the base address of the array, that macro could have been used here. Or perhaps not - I didn't look too closely ;) It isn't important. -- 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>