On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 07:59:40PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 7:50 PM Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 06:52:09PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:07 PM Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > To convert memcg and lruvec slab counters to bytes there must be > > > > a way to change these counters without touching node counters. > > > > Factor out __mod_memcg_lruvec_state() out of __mod_lruvec_state(). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> > > > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> > > > > Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > include/linux/memcontrol.h | 17 +++++++++++++++ > > > > mm/memcontrol.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > > > 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > > > > index bbf624a7f5a6..93dbc7f9d8b8 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > > > > @@ -679,11 +679,23 @@ static inline unsigned long > > > > lruvec_page_state_local(struct lruvec *lruvec, > > > > return x; > > > > } > > > > > > > > +void __mod_memcg_lruvec_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum > > > > node_stat_item idx, > > > > + int val); > > > > void __mod_lruvec_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, enum node_stat_item idx, > > > > int val); > > > > void __mod_lruvec_slab_state(void *p, enum node_stat_item idx, int > > > > val); > > > > void mod_memcg_obj_state(void *p, int idx, int val); > > > > > > > > +static inline void mod_memcg_lruvec_state(struct lruvec *lruvec, > > > > + enum node_stat_item idx, int > > > > val) > > > > > > Is this function used in later patches? Any benefit introducing it > > > here instead of in the patch where it is used for the first time? > > > > Yes, it's used in "mm: memcg/slab: charge individual slab objects instead > > of pages". > > > > It's a fairly large patchset with many internal dependencies, so there is > > always a trade-off between putting everything into a single patch, which is > > hard to review, and splitting out some changes, which make not much sense > > without seeing the whole picture. > > > > In this particular case splitting out a formal and easy-to-verify change > > makes > > the actual non-trivial patch smaller and hopefully easier for a review. > > > > But of course it's all subjective. > > > > Thanks! > > I am fine with that. > > Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>
Thank you! Appreciate it!
