On Thu 09-08-12 17:01:15, Glauber Costa wrote: [...] > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index b956cec..da341dc 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -2532,6 +2532,7 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > struct page *page = NULL; > int migratetype = allocflags_to_migratetype(gfp_mask); > unsigned int cpuset_mems_cookie; > + void *handle = NULL; > > gfp_mask &= gfp_allowed_mask; > > @@ -2543,6 +2544,13 @@ __alloc_pages_nodemask(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > return NULL; > > /* > + * Will only have any effect when __GFP_KMEMCG is set. > + * This is verified in the (always inline) callee > + */ > + if (!memcg_kmem_new_page(gfp_mask, &handle, order)) > + return NULL; When the previous patch introduced this function I thought the handle obfuscantion is to prevent from spreading struct mem_cgroup inside the page allocator but memcg_kmem_commit_page uses the type directly. So why that obfuscation? Even handle as a name sounds unnecessarily confusing. I would go with struct mem_cgroup **memcgp or even return the pointer on success or NULL otherwise. [...] > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__free_accounted_pages); Why exported? Btw. this is called from call_rcu context but it itself calls call_rcu down the chain in mem_cgroup_put. Is it safe? [...] > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(free_accounted_pages); here again -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>