The patch titled
Subject: memcg: remove memcg_kmem_skip_account
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
memcg-remove-memcg_kmem_skip_account.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/memcg-remove-memcg_kmem_skip_account.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/memcg-remove-memcg_kmem_skip_account.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: memcg: remove memcg_kmem_skip_account
The flag memcg_kmem_skip_account was added during the era of opt-out kmem
accounting. There is no need for such flag in the opt-in world as there
aren't any __GFP_ACCOUNT allocations within memcg_create_cache_enqueue().
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180919004501.178023-1-shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/sched.h | 3 ---
mm/memcontrol.c | 24 +-----------------------
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 26 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/sched.h~memcg-remove-memcg_kmem_skip_account
+++ a/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -728,9 +728,6 @@ struct task_struct {
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
unsigned in_user_fault:1;
-#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
- unsigned memcg_kmem_skip_account:1;
-#endif
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK
unsigned brk_randomized:1;
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c~memcg-remove-memcg_kmem_skip_account
+++ a/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -2460,7 +2460,7 @@ static void memcg_kmem_cache_create_func
/*
* Enqueue the creation of a per-memcg kmem_cache.
*/
-static void __memcg_schedule_kmem_cache_create(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
+static void memcg_schedule_kmem_cache_create(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
struct kmem_cache *cachep)
{
struct memcg_kmem_cache_create_work *cw;
@@ -2478,25 +2478,6 @@ static void __memcg_schedule_kmem_cache_
queue_work(memcg_kmem_cache_wq, &cw->work);
}
-static void memcg_schedule_kmem_cache_create(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
- struct kmem_cache *cachep)
-{
- /*
- * We need to stop accounting when we kmalloc, because if the
- * corresponding kmalloc cache is not yet created, the first allocation
- * in __memcg_schedule_kmem_cache_create will recurse.
- *
- * However, it is better to enclose the whole function. Depending on
- * the debugging options enabled, INIT_WORK(), for instance, can
- * trigger an allocation. This too, will make us recurse. Because at
- * this point we can't allow ourselves back into memcg_kmem_get_cache,
- * the safest choice is to do it like this, wrapping the whole function.
- */
- current->memcg_kmem_skip_account = 1;
- __memcg_schedule_kmem_cache_create(memcg, cachep);
- current->memcg_kmem_skip_account = 0;
-}
-
static inline bool memcg_kmem_bypass(void)
{
if (in_interrupt() || !current->mm || (current->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
@@ -2531,9 +2512,6 @@ struct kmem_cache *memcg_kmem_get_cache(
if (memcg_kmem_bypass())
return cachep;
- if (current->memcg_kmem_skip_account)
- return cachep;
-
memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_current();
kmemcg_id = READ_ONCE(memcg->kmemcg_id);
if (kmemcg_id < 0)
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx are
memcg-remove-memcg_kmem_skip_account.patch
