On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 03:51:05PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:50:31 -0800
> Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup_per_node {
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct mem_cgroup_lru_info {
> > > - struct mem_cgroup_per_node *nodeinfo[MAX_NUMNODES];
> > > + struct mem_cgroup_per_node *nodeinfo[0];
> >
> > It seems like a VM_BUG_ON() in mem_cgroup_zoneinfo() asserting that the
> > nid index is less than nr_node_ids would be good at catching illegal
> > indexes. I don't see any illegal indexes in your patch, but I fear that
> > someday a MAX_NUMNODES based for() loop might sneak in.
>
> Can't hurt ;)
>
> > Tangential question: why use inline here? I figure that modern
> > compilers are good at making inlining decisions.
>
> And that'll save some disk space.
>
> This?
>
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c~memcg-reduce-the-size-of-struct-memcg-244-fold-fix
> +++ a/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ enum {
> ((1 << KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE) | (1 << KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVATED))
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
> -static inline void memcg_kmem_set_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +static void memcg_kmem_set_active(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> set_bit(KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE, &memcg->kmem_account_flags);
> }
I don't disapprove, but it's the wrong function for this patch.
Should be memcg_size().
--
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>