Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/memcg: Simplify mem_cgroup_get_max()

Waiman Long
2020-08-20T20:29:47Z

On 8/20/20 1:35 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 09:03:49AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The mem_cgroup_get_max() function used to get memory+swap max from
>> both the v1 memsw and v2 memory+swap page counters & return the maximum
>> of these 2 values. This is redundant and it is more efficient to just
>> get either the v1 or the v2 values depending on which one is currently
>> in use.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> mm/memcontrol.c | 14 +++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 26b7a48d3afb..d219dca5239f 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -1633,17 +1633,13 @@ void mem_cgroup_print_oom_meminfo(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> */
>> unsigned long mem_cgroup_get_max(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> {
>> - unsigned long max;
>> + unsigned long max = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.max);
>>
>> - max = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.max);
>> if (mem_cgroup_swappiness(memcg)) {
>> - unsigned long memsw_max;
>> - unsigned long swap_max;
>> -
>> - memsw_max = memcg->memsw.max;
>> - swap_max = READ_ONCE(memcg->swap.max);
>> - swap_max = min(swap_max, (unsigned long)total_swap_pages);
>> - max = min(max + swap_max, memsw_max);
>> + if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys))
>> + max += READ_ONCE(memcg->swap.max);
>> + else
>> + max = memcg->memsw.max;
> I agree with the premise of the patch, but v1 and v2 have sufficiently
> different logic, and the way v1 overrides max from the innermost
> branch again also doesn't help in understanding what's going on.
>
> Can you please split out the v1 and v2 code?
>
> if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) {
> max = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.max);
> if (mem_cgroup_swappiness(memcg))
> max += READ_ONCE(memcg->swap.max);
> } else {
> if (mem_cgroup_swappiness(memcg))
> max = memcg->memsw.max;
> else
> max = READ_ONCE(memcg->memory.max);
> }
>
> It's slightly repetitive, but IMO much more readable.
>
Sure. That makes it even better.

Cheers,
Longman