Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266195AbUI1Jfa (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:35:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264299AbUI1Jfa (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:35:30 -0400 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([204.152.189.113]:16526 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266195AbUI1JfT (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:35:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 02:33:50 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: Jay Lan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, csa@oss.sgi.com, akpm@osdl.org, guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net, tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de, corliss@digitalmages.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 2/2] enhanced MM accounting data collection Message-Id: <20040928023350.611c84d8.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <41589927.5080803@engr.sgi.com> References: <4158956F.3030706@engr.sgi.com> <41589927.5080803@engr.sgi.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1869 Lines: 46 nits: 1) I'm not sure the "no-op if CONFIG_CSA not set" comments are worthwhile - it does not seem to be a common practice to mark macros that collapse under certain CONFIG's with such comments, and some code, such as in fork.c, would become quite a bit less readable if such comments were widely used. 2) Three of the added csa_update_integrals() lines have leading spaces, instead of a tab char, such as in: =================================================================== --- linux.orig/fs/exec.c 2004-09-27 11:57:40.201435722 -0700 +++ linux/fs/exec.c 2004-09-27 14:05:41.266160725 -0700 @@ -1163,6 +1164,9 @@ /* execve success */ security_bprm_free(&bprm); + /* no-op if CONFIG_CSA not set */ + csa_update_integrals(); <========= + update_mem_hiwater(); <========= return retval; } 3) Is it always the case that csa_update_integrals() and update_mem_hiwater() are used together? If so, perhaps they could be collapsed into one? Even the current->mm test inside them could be made one test, perhaps? 4) What kind of kernel text size expansion does this cause? There seem to be about a dozen of these calls. What are the pros and cons of inlining csa_update_integrals() and update_mem_hiwater()? Are these on hot enough kernel code paths that we should benchmark with and without these hooks enabled, both inline and out-of-line? -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/