On 06/04/2015 01:53 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:47:47PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> On 06/04/2015 12:02 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 04:35:35PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> index 4d0a756..45bc78d 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>>>> @@ -534,6 +534,20 @@ void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(sock_update_memcg);
>>>>
>>>> +struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_current(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup *cg;
>>>> +
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> + cg = mem_cgroup_from_task(current);
>>>> + if (mem_cgroup_is_root(cg) || !css_tryget(&cg->css))
>>>> + cg = NULL;
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> +
>>>> + return cg;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(try_get_mem_cgroup_from_current);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Why not use try_get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(current->mm) instead?
>>
>> Because it's stupid, I don't need the steps it does when trying
>> to pick the mm owner in a loop.
>
> Our goal is to reduce churn.
Really?!
> In particular, this means reusing existing functions wherever possible.
Even "reducing churn" goal doesn't mean so.
> This particular function does what you need
> and there is no point to care if it is stupid or not, just use it :-)
> The caller of this function is not in a hot path anyway.
Nice concept. Why not remove ve_struct->_venet_dev then? We can always safely
do the __dev_get_by_name(ve->ve_ns->net_ns, "venet0").
-- Pavel
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
