From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id mAC6DDPf002734 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:13:13 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CA945DE4C for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:13:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24C945DE3D for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:13:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0D11DB803F for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:13:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6711DB8038 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:13:12 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:12:33 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][mm] [PATCH 3/4] Memory cgroup hierarchical reclaim (v3) Message-Id: <20081112151233.0ec8dc44.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <491A7345.4090500@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20081111123314.6566.54133.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20081111123417.6566.52629.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20081112140236.46448b47.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <491A6E71.5010307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081112150126.46ac6042.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <491A7345.4090500@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin , David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov , Dhaval Giani , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:40:13 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > > I think of it as easy to update - as in the modularity, you can plug out > hierarchical reclaim easily and implement your own hierarchical reclaim. > When I do so, I'll rewrite all, again. > > Can you make this code iterative rather than recursive ? > > > > I don't like this kind of recursive call with complexed lock/unlock. > > I tried an iterative version, which ended up looking very ugly. I think the > recursive version is easier to understand. What we do is a DFS walk - pretty > standard algorithm. > But recursive one is not good for search-and-try algorithm. Thanks, -Kame -- 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