On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:34:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:19:49 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I agree with Johannes who originally suggested to expose mem_cgroup that > > it will allow for a better code later. > > Sure, but how *much* better? Are there a significant number of > fastpath functions involved? > > From a maintainability/readability point of view, this is quite a bad > patch. It exposes a *lot* of stuff to the whole world. We need to get > a pretty good runtime benefit from doing this to ourselves. I don't > think that saving 376 bytes on a fatconfig build is sufficient > justification? It's not a performance issue for me. Some stuff is hard to read when you have memcg functions with klunky names interrupting the code flow to do something trivial to a struct mem_cgroup member, like mem_cgroup_lruvec_online() and mem_cgroup_get_lru_size(). Maybe we can keep thresholds private and encapsulate the softlimit tree stuff in mem_cgroup_per_zone into something private as well, as this is not used - and unlikely to be used - outside of memcg proper. But otherwise, I think struct mem_cgroup should have mm-scope. -- 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>