From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_reclaim_iter Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 02:03:26 -0700 Message-ID: <20130605090326.GC7990@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1370306679-13129-4-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20130604131843.GF31242@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130604205025.GG14916@htj.dyndns.org> <20130604212808.GB13231@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130604215535.GM14916@htj.dyndns.org> <20130605073023.GB15997@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130605082023.GG7303@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130605083628.GE15997@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130605084456.GA7990@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130605085531.GG15997@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=UyFuaSwRj32asqCwGCJUfaYYn8HHk0pg22d7dzdLSCc=; b=gT9tBleCAjyL8PEUBBDwndje/AMrtii+jW5B2TUTwFgExU3bUXHcQKOS1UOOy9pisR ElXPqiCThO98AQkKZIzJ+n8JyuYziqQve+ADurIE9NNyZ570tC8nCssouRRl6oG8UHpj 84/310ObUB7vS2ZmG7MizFnRbhf+yK8OOiIyM9mRdFr55Vr1rd69k0vNCTgm0An2VZPg r9KvNWy0Fx+RuDyKFtEHxtCna/sOdFp5lU/BLaXYPViZor7kVcsY/TOpS59QbuCxFNSm vRCBlNpzcROEcaLYo9esxAMdNtMfxjyV21R8WEBbpIMyQSevEwxHG7u/sUxUjE6o+cMH LjZw== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130605085531.GG15997@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, bsingharora@gmail.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, lizefan@huawei.com Hey, On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:55:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Yeah, that's true. I just wanna avoid the barrier dancing. Only one > > of the ancestors can cache a memcg, right? > > No. All of them on the way up hierarchy. Basically each parent which > ever triggered the reclaim caches reclaimers. Oh, I meant only the ancestors can cache a memcg, so yeap. > > Walking up the tree scanning for cached ones and putting them should > > work? Is that what you were suggesting? > > That was my first version of the patch I linked in the previous email. Yeah, indeed. Johannes, what do you think? Between the recent cgroup iterator update and xchg(), we don't need the weak referencing and it's just wrong to have that level of complexity in memcg proper. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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