linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] memcg: rework mem_cgroup_iter to use cgroup iterators
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:12:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121115151255.GE11990@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121115144732.GB7306@mtj.dyndns.org>

On Thu 15-11-12 06:47:32, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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. 

The whole point behind mem_cgroup_iter is to hide all the complexity
behind memcg iteration. Memcg code either use for_each_mem_cgroup_tree
for !reclaim case and mem_cgroup_iter otherwise.

> 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.

As I said this would mean that the current mem_cgroup_iter code would
have to be inverted which doesn't simplify the code much. I'd rather
hide all the grossy details inside the memcg iterator.
Or am I still missing your suggestion?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2012-11-15 15:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-13 15:30 [RFC] rework mem_cgroup iterator Michal Hocko
2012-11-13 15:30 ` [RFC 1/5] memcg: synchronize per-zone iterator access by a spinlock Michal Hocko
2012-11-14  0:03   ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-11-13 15:30 ` [RFC 2/5] memcg: rework mem_cgroup_iter to use cgroup iterators Michal Hocko
2012-11-13 16:14   ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-14  8:51     ` Michal Hocko
2012-11-14 18:52       ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-15  9:51         ` Michal Hocko
2012-11-15 14:47           ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-15 15:12             ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2012-11-15 15:31               ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-15 16:15                 ` Michal Hocko
2012-11-14  0:20   ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-11-14 10:10     ` Michal Hocko
2012-11-15  4:12       ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-11-15  9:52         ` Michal Hocko
2012-11-19 14:05       ` Michal Hocko
2012-11-19 15:11   ` Michal Hocko
2012-11-13 15:30 ` [RFC 3/5] memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter Michal Hocko
2012-11-13 15:30 ` [RFC 4/5] memcg: clean up mem_cgroup_iter Michal Hocko
2012-11-13 15:30 ` [RFC 5/5] cgroup: remove css_get_next Michal Hocko
2012-11-14  0:13 ` [RFC] rework mem_cgroup iterator Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-11-14  1:55 ` Li Zefan
2012-11-14  8:36   ` Michal Hocko
2012-11-14 18:30     ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-15  2:12   ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2012-11-14 16:17 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-14  8:40   ` Michal Hocko
2012-11-14 18:41   ` Tejun Heo
2012-11-15  2:44     ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-14 18:46       ` Tejun Heo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20121115151255.GE11990@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=glommer@parallels.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=htejun@gmail.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=yinghan@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox