On 05/29/2013 04:23 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:38:38 +0400 Andrey Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> struct memcg_cache_params has a union. Different parts of this union are
>> used for root and non-root caches. A part with destroying work is used only
>> for non-root caches.
>
> That union is a bit dangerous. Perhaps it would be better to do
> something like
>
> --- a/include/linux/slab.h~a
> +++ a/include/linux/slab.h
> @@ -337,15 +337,17 @@ static __always_inline int kmalloc_size(
> struct memcg_cache_params {
> bool is_root_cache;
> union {
> - struct kmem_cache *memcg_caches[0];
> - struct {
> + struct memcg_root_cache {
> + struct kmem_cache *caches[0];
> + } memcg_root_cache;
> + struct memcg_child_cache {
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> struct list_head list;
> struct kmem_cache *root_cache;
> bool dead;
> atomic_t nr_pages;
> struct work_struct destroy;
> - };
> + } memcg_child_cache;
> };
> };
>
> And then adopt the convention of selecting either memcg_root_cache or
> memcg_child_cache at the highest level then passing the more strongly
> typed pointer to callees.
>
Since it is already creating problems, yes, I agree.
I will try to cook up something soon.
--
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>