From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754712Ab1JKNpG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:45:06 -0400
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:62811 "EHLO
	mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751804Ab1JKNpE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:45:04 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:44:58 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>, Tim Hockin <thockin@hockin.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] cgroups: Add res_counter_write_u64() API
Message-ID: <20111011134454.GD16777@somewhere.redhat.com>
References: <1317668832-10784-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1317668832-10784-2-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20111004001751.GA6727@shutemov.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111004001751.GA6727@shutemov.name>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 03:17:51AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 09:07:03PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Extend the resource counter API with a mirror of
> > res_counter_read_u64() to make it handy to update a resource
> > counter value from a cgroup subsystem u64 value file.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > Acked-by: Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>
> > Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > Cc: Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com>
> > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
> > Cc: Tim Hockin <thockin@hockin.org>
> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>
> > Cc: Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/res_counter.h |    2 ++
> >  kernel/res_counter.c        |   25 +++++++++++++++++++------
> >  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/res_counter.h b/include/linux/res_counter.h
> > index c9d625c..1b3fe05 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/res_counter.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/res_counter.h
> > @@ -82,6 +82,8 @@ int res_counter_memparse_write_strategy(const char *buf,
> >  int res_counter_write(struct res_counter *counter, int member,
> >  		      const char *buffer, write_strategy_fn write_strategy);
> >  
> > +void res_counter_write_u64(struct res_counter *counter, int member, u64 val);
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * the field descriptors. one for each member of res_counter
> >   */
> > diff --git a/kernel/res_counter.c b/kernel/res_counter.c
> > index 34683ef..0faafcc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/res_counter.c
> > +++ b/kernel/res_counter.c
> > @@ -168,12 +168,26 @@ int res_counter_memparse_write_strategy(const char *buf,
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +void res_counter_write_u64(struct res_counter *counter, int member, u64 val)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long long *target;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We need the lock to protect against concurrent add/dec on 32 bits.
> > +	 * No need to ifdef it's seldom used.
> > +	 */
> 
> Should we hace two version of res_counter_write_u64() for 32/64 bit host?
> As with res_counter_read_u64().

I thought about it yeah.

But this is used in rare cases when the user writes the value from the cgroup
filesystem. In pratice the overhead won't be noticed.
I fear that would rather uglify the code with more ifdeffery.