On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 04:25:57PM +0800, Kairui Song wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 3:11 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 10:42 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Kairui Song <kasong@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap() implies a mem_cgroup_disabled() check, > > > which is already checked by the caller here. Skip it by calling > > > __mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap() directly. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > index 7b3503d12aaf..d3d1eb506eee 100644 > > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > > > @@ -4615,7 +4615,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_swapin_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned int nr_pages) > > > * let's not wait for it. The page already received a > > > * memory+swap charge, drop the swap entry duplicate. > > > */ > > > - mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(entry, nr_pages); > > > + __mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(entry, nr_pages); > > > > Would it be better to instead remove the mem_cgroup_disabled() check > > here and have a single check in this path? > > Good suggestion, and the kernel test bot just reported > __mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap is undefined with !CONFIG_SWAP, so better > to fix it by removing the check instead. > This sounds reasonable.
