Re: [patch 01/11] mm: memcg: consolidate hierarchy iterationprimitives

[Michal Hocko]

On Tue 13-09-11 01:37:46, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:57:18PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> >  	while (1) {
> > -		victim = mem_cgroup_select_victim(root_memcg);
> > -		if (victim == root_memcg) {
> > +		victim = mem_cgroup_iter(root_memcg, victim, true);
> > +		if (!victim) {
> >  			loop++;
> >  			/*
> >  			 * We are not draining per cpu cached charges during
> > @@ -1689,10 +1644,8 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
> >  				 * anything, it might because there are
> >  				 * no reclaimable pages under this hierarchy
> >  				 */
> > -				if (!check_soft || !total) {
> > -					css_put(&victim->css);
> > +				if (!check_soft || !total)
> >  					break;
> > -				}
> >  				/*
> >  				 * We want to do more targeted reclaim.
> >  				 * excess >> 2 is not to excessive so as to
> > @@ -1700,15 +1653,13 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
> >  				 * coming back to reclaim from this cgroup
> >  				 */
> >  				if (total >= (excess >> 2) ||
> > -					(loop > MEM_CGROUP_MAX_RECLAIM_LOOPS)) {
> > -					css_put(&victim->css);
> > +					(loop > MEM_CGROUP_MAX_RECLAIM_LOOPS))
> >  					break;
> > -				}
> >  			}
> > +			continue;
> 
> Souldn't we do
> 
> victim = root_memcg;
> 
> instead?

You want to save mem_cgroup_iter call?
Yes it will work... I am not sure it is really an improvement. If we
just continue we can rely on mem_cgroup_iter doing the right thing.
Assignment might be not that obvious. But I dunno. 
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/