Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: multi-memcg percpu charge cache

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 18:10:22 -0700

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:02:29 -0700 Shakeel Butt wrote:
>  static void refill_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsigned int nr_pages)
>  {
>  	struct memcg_stock_pcp *stock;
> -	unsigned int stock_pages;
> +	struct mem_cgroup *cached;
> +	uint8_t stock_pages;

Is it okay to use uintX_t now?

>  	unsigned long flags;
> +	bool evict = true;
> +	int i;
>  
>  	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg));
>  
> -	if (!local_trylock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags)) {
> +	if (nr_pages > MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH ||
> +	    !local_trylock_irqsave(&memcg_stock.stock_lock, flags)) {
>  		/*
> -		 * In case of unlikely failure to lock percpu stock_lock
> -		 * uncharge memcg directly.
> +		 * In case of larger than batch refill or unlikely failure to
> +		 * lock the percpu stock_lock, uncharge memcg directly.
>  		 */

We're bypassing the cache for > CHARGE_BATCH because the u8 math 
may overflow? Could be useful to refocus the comment on the 'why'

>  		memcg_uncharge(memcg, nr_pages);
>  		return;
>  	}

nits notwithstanding:

Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>

Thanks!