From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] memcg: split part of memcg creation to css_online Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:42:30 +0400 Message-ID: <50FCFF76.6090202@parallels.com> References: <1357897527-15479-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1357897527-15479-3-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20130118152526.GF10701@dhcp22.suse.cz> <50FCEF40.8040709@parallels.com> <20130121083828.GB7798@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130121083828.GB7798@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Michal Hocko Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo On 01/21/2013 12:38 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 21-01-13 11:33:20, Glauber Costa wrote: >> On 01/18/2013 07:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>> - spin_lock_init(&memcg->move_lock); >>>>> + memcg->swappiness = mem_cgroup_swappiness(parent); >>> Please move this up to oom_kill_disable and use_hierarchy >>> initialization. >> >> One thing: wouldn't moving it to inside use_hierarchy be a change of >> behavior here? > > I do not see how it would change the behavior. But maybe I wasn't clear > enough. I just wanted to make all three: > memcg->use_hierarchy = parent->use_hierarchy; > memcg->oom_kill_disable = parent->oom_kill_disable; > memcg->swappiness = mem_cgroup_swappiness(parent); > > in the same visual block so that we can split the function into three > parts. Inherited values which don't depend on use_hierarchy, those that > depend on use_hierarchy and the rest that depends on the previous > decisions (kmem e.g.). > Makes sense? > Yes. I misunderstood you, believing you wanted the swappiness assignment to go inside the use_hierarchy block. -- 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