[PATCH] memcg: do not check for mm in mem_cgroup_count_vm_eventdisabled

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 28-11-12 15:29:30, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 20-11-12 13:49:32, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:44:34 -0800 (PST)
> > > David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > > > -void mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct mm_struct *mm, enum vm_event_item idx);
> > > > +void __mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct mm_struct *mm, enum vm_event_item idx);
> > > > +static inline void mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > +					     enum vm_event_item idx)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (mem_cgroup_disabled() || !mm)
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +	__mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(mm, idx);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Does the !mm case occur frequently enough to justify inlining it, or
> > > should that test remain out-of-line?
> > 
> > Now that you've asked about it I started looking around and I cannot see
> > how mm can ever be NULL. The condition is there since the very beginning
> > (456f998e memcg: add the pagefault count into memcg stats) but all the
> > callers are page fault handlers and those shouldn't have mm==NULL.
> > Or is there anything obvious I am missing?
> > 
> > Ying, the whole thread starts https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/19/545 but
> > the primary question is why we need !mm test for mem_cgroup_count_vm_event
> > at all.
> 
> Here's a guess: as Ying's 456f998e patch started out in akpm's tree,
> shmem.c was calling mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(current->mm, PGMAJFAULT).
> 
> Then I insisted that was inconsistent with how we usually account when
> one task touches another's address space, and rearranged it to work on
> vma->vm_mm instead.

Thanks Hugh!
 
> Done the original way, if the touching task were a kernel daemon (KSM's
> ksmd comes to my mind), then the current->mm could well have been NULL.
> 
> I agree with you that it looks redundant now.

Andrew could you please pick this up?
---