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>