On Mon 03-02-14 19:54:38, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > Memcg-awareness turned kmem_cache_create() into a dirty interweaving of > memcg-only and except-for-memcg calls. To clean this up, let's create a > separate function handling memcg caches creation. Although this will > result in the two functions having several hunks of practically the same > code, I guess this is the case when readability fully covers the cost of > code duplication.
I don't know. The code is apparently cleaner because calling a function with NULL memcg just to go via several if (memcg) branches is ugly as hell. But having a duplicated function like this calls for a problem later. Would it be possible to split kmem_cache_create into memcg independant part and do the rest in a single memcg branch? > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavy...@parallels.com> > --- > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 14 ++--- > include/linux/slab.h | 9 ++- > mm/memcontrol.c | 16 ++---- > mm/slab_common.c | 130 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 4 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > index 84e4801fc36c..de79a9617e09 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > @@ -500,8 +500,8 @@ int memcg_cache_id(struct mem_cgroup *memcg); > > char *memcg_create_cache_name(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > struct kmem_cache *root_cache); > -int memcg_alloc_cache_params(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct kmem_cache *s, > - struct kmem_cache *root_cache); > +int memcg_alloc_cache_params(struct kmem_cache *s, > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct kmem_cache *root_cache); Why is the parameters ordering changed? It really doesn't help review the patch. Also what does `s' stand for and can we use a more descriptive name, please? [...] -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
