On Wed 05-06-13 01:44:56, Tejun Heo wrote: [...] > > alive. Sorry, I do not like it at all. I find it much better to clean up > > when the group is removed. Because doing things asynchronously just > > makes it more obscure. There is no reason to do such a thing on the > > background when we know _when_ to do the cleanup and that is definitely > > _not a hot path_. > > Yeah, that's true. I just wanna avoid the barrier dancing. Only one > of the ancestors can cache a memcg, right? No. All of them on the way up hierarchy. Basically each parent which ever triggered the reclaim caches reclaimers. > Walking up the tree scanning for cached ones and putting them should > work? Is that what you were suggesting? That was my first version of the patch I linked in the previous email. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
