On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:39 PM Nhat Pham nphamcs@gmail.com wrote:
memcg as a candidate for the global limit reclaim.
Very minor nitpick. This patch can fold with the later patch that uses it. That makes the review easier, no need to cross reference different patches. It will also make it harder to introduce API that nobody uses.
I don't have a strong preference one way or the other :) Probably not worth the churn tho.
Squashing a patch is very easy. If you are refreshing a new series, it is worthwhile to do it. I notice on the other thread Yosry pointed out you did not use the function "mem_cgroup_tryget_online" in patch 3, that is exactly the situation my suggestion is trying to prevent.
If you don't have a strong preference, it sounds like you should squash it.
Chris
Chris
Signed-off-by: Nhat Pham nphamcs@gmail.com
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h index 7bdcf3020d7a..2bd7d14ace78 100644 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h @@ -821,6 +821,11 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_tryget(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) return !memcg || css_tryget(&memcg->css); }
+static inline bool mem_cgroup_tryget_online(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{
return !memcg || css_tryget_online(&memcg->css);+}
static inline void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { if (memcg) @@ -1349,6 +1354,11 @@ static inline bool mem_cgroup_tryget(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) return true; }
+static inline bool mem_cgroup_tryget_online(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) +{
return true;+}
static inline void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *memcg) { } -- 2.34.1