On 10/18/2012 03:28 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 1182188..e24b388 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
>> /* internal only representation about the status of kmem accounting. */
>> enum {
>> KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE = 0, /* accounted by this cgroup itself */
>> + KMEM_ACCOUNTED_DEAD, /* dead memcg, pending kmem charges */
>
> "dead memcg with pending kmem charges" seems better.
>
ok.
>> };
>>
>> #define KMEM_ACCOUNTED_MASK (1 << KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE)
>> @@ -353,6 +354,22 @@ static void memcg_kmem_set_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> {
>> set_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE, &memcg->kmem_accounted);
>> }
>> +
>> +static bool memcg_kmem_is_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> +{
>> + return test_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE, &memcg->kmem_accounted);
>> +}
>
> I think all of these should be inline.
>
They end up being, to be best of my knowledge the compiler can and will
inline such simple functions regardless of their marking, unless you
explicitly mark them noinline.
>> +
>> +static void memcg_kmem_mark_dead(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> +{
>> + if (test_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE, &memcg->kmem_accounted))
>> + set_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_DEAD, &memcg->kmem_accounted);
>> +}
>
> The set_bit() doesn't happen atomically with the test_bit(), what
> synchronization is required for this?
>
I believe the explanation Michal gave in answer to this is comprehensive.
--
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>