From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [patch -v4 4/8] memcg: enhance memcg iterator to support predicates Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:37:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20130605073728.GC15997@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1370254735-13012-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <1370254735-13012-5-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <20130604010737.GF29989@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130604134523.GH31242@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130604193619.GA14916@htj.dyndns.org> <20130604204807.GA13231@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130604205426.GI14916@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130604205426.GI14916@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Tejun Heo Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ying Han , Hugh Dickins , Glauber Costa , Michel Lespinasse , Greg Thelen , Balbir Singh On Tue 04-06-13 13:54:26, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:48:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I really don't think memcg can afford to add more mess than there > > > already is. Let's try to get things right with each change, please. > > > > Is this really about inside vs. outside skipping? I think this is a > > general improvement to the code. I really prefer not duplicating common > > code and skipping handling is such a code (we have a visitor which can > > control the walk). With a side bonus that it doesn't have to pollute > > vmscan more than necessary. > > > > Please be more specific about _what_ is so ugly about this interface so > > that it matters so much. > > Can you please try the other approach and see how it looks? Tejun, I do not have infinite amount of time and this is barely a priority for the patchset. The core part is to be able to skip nodes/subtrees which are not worth reclaiming, remember? I have already expressed my priorities for inside skipping decisions. You are just throwing "let's try a different way" handwavy suggestions. I have no problem to pull the skip logic outside of iterators if more people think that this is _really_ important. But until then I take it as a really low priority that shouldn't delay the patchset without a good reason. So please try to focus on the technical parts of the patchset if you want to help with the review. I really appreciate suggestions but please do not get down to bike scheding. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752305Ab3FEHhd (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2013 03:37:33 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40702 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752079Ab3FEHha (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2013 03:37:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:37:28 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Tejun Heo Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ying Han , Hugh Dickins , Glauber Costa , Michel Lespinasse , Greg Thelen , Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [patch -v4 4/8] memcg: enhance memcg iterator to support predicates Message-ID: <20130605073728.GC15997@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1370254735-13012-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <1370254735-13012-5-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <20130604010737.GF29989@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130604134523.GH31242@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130604193619.GA14916@htj.dyndns.org> <20130604204807.GA13231@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130604205426.GI14916@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130604205426.GI14916@htj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 04-06-13 13:54:26, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:48:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I really don't think memcg can afford to add more mess than there > > > already is. Let's try to get things right with each change, please. > > > > Is this really about inside vs. outside skipping? I think this is a > > general improvement to the code. I really prefer not duplicating common > > code and skipping handling is such a code (we have a visitor which can > > control the walk). With a side bonus that it doesn't have to pollute > > vmscan more than necessary. > > > > Please be more specific about _what_ is so ugly about this interface so > > that it matters so much. > > Can you please try the other approach and see how it looks? Tejun, I do not have infinite amount of time and this is barely a priority for the patchset. The core part is to be able to skip nodes/subtrees which are not worth reclaiming, remember? I have already expressed my priorities for inside skipping decisions. You are just throwing "let's try a different way" handwavy suggestions. I have no problem to pull the skip logic outside of iterators if more people think that this is _really_ important. But until then I take it as a really low priority that shouldn't delay the patchset without a good reason. So please try to focus on the technical parts of the patchset if you want to help with the review. I really appreciate suggestions but please do not get down to bike scheding. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs