From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/5] memcg: cleanup charge routines
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:51:27 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140203155127.GI6963@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140203132001.GE2495@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 02:20:01PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 30-01-14 12:18:37, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 04:45:26PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > -static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > - gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > +static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > unsigned int nr_pages,
> > > - struct mem_cgroup **ptr,
> > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > > bool oom)
> >
> > Why not keep the __mem_cgroup_try_charge() name? It's shorter and
> > just as descriptive.
>
> I wanted to have 2 different names with clear reference to _what_ is
> going to be charged. But I am always open to naming suggestions.
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * Charges and returns memcg associated with the given mm (or root_mem_cgroup
> > > + * if mm is NULL). Returns NULL if memcg is under OOM.
> > > + */
> > > +static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_try_charge_mm(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > + gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > + unsigned int nr_pages,
> > > + bool oom)
> >
> > We already have a try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm().
> >
> > After this series, this function basically duplicates that and it
> > would be much cleaner if we only had one try_charge() function and let
> > all the callers use the appropriate try_get_mem_cgroup_from_wherever()
> > themselves.
>
> try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm doesn't charge memory itself. It just tries
> to get memcg from the given mm. It is called also from a context which
> doesn't charge any memory (task_in_mem_cgroup). Or have I misunderstood
> you?
Your mem_cgroup_try_charge_mm() looks up a memcg from mm and calls
try_charge(). But we have try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm() to do the
first half, so why not have the current callers of
mem_cgroup_try_charge_mm() just use try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm() and
try_charge()? Why is charging through an mm - as opposed to through a
page or through the task - special?
Most callsites already do the lookups themselves:
try_charge_swapin: uses try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page()
kmem_newpage_charge: uses try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm()
precharge: uses mem_cgroup_from_task()
So just let these two do the same:
newpage_charge: could use try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm()
cache_charge: could use try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm()
And then provide one try_charge() that always takes a non-null memcg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/5] memcg: cleanup charge routines
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:51:27 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140203155127.GI6963@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140203132001.GE2495@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 02:20:01PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 30-01-14 12:18:37, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 04:45:26PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > -static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > - gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > +static int __mem_cgroup_try_charge_memcg(gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > unsigned int nr_pages,
> > > - struct mem_cgroup **ptr,
> > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > > bool oom)
> >
> > Why not keep the __mem_cgroup_try_charge() name? It's shorter and
> > just as descriptive.
>
> I wanted to have 2 different names with clear reference to _what_ is
> going to be charged. But I am always open to naming suggestions.
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * Charges and returns memcg associated with the given mm (or root_mem_cgroup
> > > + * if mm is NULL). Returns NULL if memcg is under OOM.
> > > + */
> > > +static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_try_charge_mm(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > + gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > + unsigned int nr_pages,
> > > + bool oom)
> >
> > We already have a try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm().
> >
> > After this series, this function basically duplicates that and it
> > would be much cleaner if we only had one try_charge() function and let
> > all the callers use the appropriate try_get_mem_cgroup_from_wherever()
> > themselves.
>
> try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm doesn't charge memory itself. It just tries
> to get memcg from the given mm. It is called also from a context which
> doesn't charge any memory (task_in_mem_cgroup). Or have I misunderstood
> you?
Your mem_cgroup_try_charge_mm() looks up a memcg from mm and calls
try_charge(). But we have try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm() to do the
first half, so why not have the current callers of
mem_cgroup_try_charge_mm() just use try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm() and
try_charge()? Why is charging through an mm - as opposed to through a
page or through the task - special?
Most callsites already do the lookups themselves:
try_charge_swapin: uses try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page()
kmem_newpage_charge: uses try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm()
precharge: uses mem_cgroup_from_task()
So just let these two do the same:
newpage_charge: could use try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm()
cache_charge: could use try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm()
And then provide one try_charge() that always takes a non-null memcg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-03 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-17 15:45 [RFC] memcg: some charge path cleanups + css offline vs. charge race fix Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` [RFC 1/5] memcg: cleanup charge routines Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-30 17:18 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-30 17:18 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-02-03 13:20 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-03 13:20 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-03 15:51 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2014-02-03 15:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-02-03 16:41 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-03 16:41 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` [RFC 2/5] memcg: move stock charge into __mem_cgroup_try_charge_memcg Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` [RFC 3/5] memcg: mm == NULL is not allowed for mem_cgroup_try_charge_mm Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` [RFC 4/5] memcg: make sure that memcg is not offline when charging Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
2014-01-30 17:29 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-01-30 17:29 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-02-03 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-03 13:33 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-03 16:18 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-02-03 16:18 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-02-03 16:44 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-03 16:44 ` Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` [RFC 5/5] Revert "mm: memcg: fix race condition between memcg teardown and swapin" Michal Hocko
2013-12-17 15:45 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140203155127.GI6963@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.