On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 3:52 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 8:49 AM Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The duplication makes it seem like some work is required before > > uncharging in the !PageHWPoison case. But it isn't, so we can simplify > > the code a little. > > > > Note the PageMemcgKmem check is redundant, but I've left it in as it > > avoids an unnecessary function call. > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for the patch. Actually the PageMemcgKmem/folio_memcg_kmem > check should be in memcg_kmem_uncharge_page() and not in > __memcg_kmem_uncharge_page(). Anyways, that is orthogonal to this > patch. Agreed. If we move the check into memcg_kmem_uncharge_page(), perhaps we should call it directly here instead of doing the checks, since there won't be an extra function call as it is inline, right? We can also make __memcg_kmem_uncharge_page static to mm/memcontrol.c I suspect the same can be done for __memcg_kmem_charge_page() as well.
