@@ -3834,11 +3866,15 @@ static inline void __cache_free(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void *objp,
*/
void *kmem_cache_alloc(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags)
{
- void *ret = __cache_alloc(cachep, flags, __builtin_return_address(0));
+ void *ret;
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ cachep = mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(cachep, flags);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
Don't we need to check in_interrupt(), current, __GFP_NOFAIL every
time we call mem_cgroup_cgroup_get_kmem_cache()?
I would personally prefer if those checks were put inside
mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache() instead of having to check for every
caller.
in_interrupt() yes, __GFP_NOFAIL I don't think so.
__GFP_NOFAIL should lead to a res_counter_charge_nofail() in the end.
The name similarity is no coincidence...
From a code style PoV, it makes sense to bundle an in_interrupt() check
here, but from a performance PoV, putting it in the callers can help us
avoid the price of a function call.
But well, looking at the code, I see it is not there as well... =(
I plan to change memcontrol.h to look like this:
static __always_inline struct kmem_cache *
mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t gfp)
{
if (mem_cgroup_kmem_on && current->mm && !in_interrupt())
return __mem_cgroup_get_kmem_cache(cachep, gfp);
return cachep;
}
--
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>