On 24.01.23 10:21, nb wrote:
@@ -2260,9 +2263,16 @@ static bool consume_stock(struct mem_cgroup
*memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
local_lock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags);
stock = this_cpu_ptr(&memcg_stock);
- if (memcg == stock->cached && stock->nr_pages >= nr_pages) {
- stock->nr_pages -= nr_pages;
- ret = true;
+ if (memcg == stock->cached) {
+ if (cache && stock->cache_nr_pages >= nr_pages) {
+ stock->cache_nr_pages -= nr_pages;
+ ret = true;
+ }
+
+ if (!cache && stock->nr_pages >= nr_pages) {
+ stock->nr_pages -= nr_pages;
+ ret = true;
+ }
nit: I find the original condition somewhat more readaable i.e having
the memch stock->cached and cache_nr_pages check in the same if.
if (memcg == stock->cached && stock->cache_nr_pages >= nr_pages) {
if (cached)
stock->cache_nr_pages -= nr_pages;
else
stock->nr_pages -= nr_pages;
ret = true;
}
I've made it exactly like this initially but on a second look it doesn't
check one of the conditions so i left it like this.
see cache_nr_pages vs nr_pages checks.
- stock->nr_pages += nr_pages;
+ if (!cache)
+ stock->nr_pages += nr_pages;
+ else
+ stock->cache_nr_pages += nr_pages;
nit:
It reads more natural if we do if (cache) else rathen with the negative
condition.
afaik the first condition is the likely condition so i put it like this.
as for readability i do not find a major difference.
--
Regards,
Alexander Atanasov
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
