Hello, Michal. On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:51:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > I'm a bit confused. Why would that make any difference? Shouldn't it > > be just able to test the condition and continue? > > Ohh, I misunderstood your proposal. So what you are suggesting is > to put all the logic we have in mem_cgroup_iter inside what you call > reclaim here + mem_cgroup_iter_break inside the loop, right? > > I do not see how this would help us much. mem_cgroup_iter is not the > nicest piece of code but it handles quite a complex requirements that we > have currently (css reference count, multiple reclaimers racing). So I > would rather keep it this way. Further simplifications are welcome of > course. > > Is there any reason why you are not happy about direct using of > cgroup_next_descendant_pre?
Because I'd like to consider the next functions as implementation detail, and having interations structred as loops tend to read better and less error-prone. e.g. when you use next functions directly, it's way easier to circumvent locking requirements in a way which isn't very obvious. So, unless it messes up the code too much (and I can't see why it would), I'd much prefer if memcg used for_each_*() macros. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
