On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 04:03:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:56:39 -0400 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > Meaning a new mm/memcontrol.h? That's a bit better I suppose. I meant as opposed to being private to memcontrol.c. I'm not sure I quite see the problem of having these definitions in include/linux, as long as we keep the stuff that is genuinely only used in memcontrol.c private to that file. But mm/memcontrol.h would probably work too. -- 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>