On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:56:34 +0200 Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:55:04AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:03:01 +0200 > > Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No, the hierarchy iteration in shrink_zone() is done after a single > memcg, which is equivalent to the old code: scan all zones at all > priority levels from a memcg, then move on to the next memcg. This > also works because of the per-zone per-priority last_scanned_child: > > for each priority > for each zone > mem = mem_cgroup_iter(root) > scan(mem) > > priority-12 + zone-1 will yield memcg-1. priority-12 + zone-2 starts > at its own last_scanned_child, so yields memcg-1 as well, etc. A > second reclaimer that comes in with priority-12 + zone-1 will receive > memcg-2 for scanning. So there is no change in behaviour for limit > reclaim. > ok, thanks. > > If so, I need to abandon node-selection-logic for reclaim-by-limit > > and nodemask-for-memcg which shows me very good result. > > I'll be sad ;) > > With my clarification, do you still think so? > No. Thank you. Regards, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>