On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Dunno, this particular case is more explicit but it is also uglier so I
> do not think this is an overall improvement. I would rather keep the
> current state unless the change either simplifies the generated code
> or it is much better to rea
On Tue 22-04-14 18:58:11, Jianyu Zhan wrote:
[...]
> This reminds me of my draft edition of this patch, I specifically handle
> this case as:
>
> if (reclaim) {
>if (!memcg ) {
> iter->generation++;
> if (!prev) {
>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Sorry, I should have been more specific that I was talking about
> mem_cgroup_reclaim_cookie path where the iteration for this particular
> zone and priority ended at the last node without finishing the full
> roundtrip last time. This new ite
On Tue 22-04-14 18:17:09, Jianyu Zhan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > What about
> > 3. last_visited == last_node in the tree
> >
> > __mem_cgroup_iter_next returns NULL and the iterator would return
> > without visiting anything.
>
> Hi, Michal,
>
> yep, if
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> What about
> 3. last_visited == last_node in the tree
>
> __mem_cgroup_iter_next returns NULL and the iterator would return
> without visiting anything.
Hi, Michal,
yep, if 3 last_visited == last_node, then this means we have done a roun
On Sat 19-04-14 06:58:55, Jianyu Zhan wrote:
> Currently, the iteration job in mem_cgroup_iter() all delegates
> to __mem_cgroup_iter_next(), which will skip dead node.
>
> Thus, the outer while loop in mem_cgroup_iter() is meaningless.
> It could be proven by this:
>
> 1. memcg != NULL
> we
Currently, the iteration job in mem_cgroup_iter() all delegates
to __mem_cgroup_iter_next(), which will skip dead node.
Thus, the outer while loop in mem_cgroup_iter() is meaningless.
It could be proven by this:
1. memcg != NULL
we are done, no loop needed.
2. memcg == NULL
2.1 prev != NUL
7 matches
Mail list logo
