On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 04:30:36PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> @@ -1063,8 +1063,8 @@ struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_iter(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> struct mem_cgroup *prev,
> struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_cookie *reclaim)
> {
> - struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
> - int id = 0;
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL,
> + *last_visited = NULL;
Nitpick but please don't do this.
> + /*
> + * Root is not visited by cgroup iterators so it needs a special
> + * treatment.
> + */
> + if (!last_visited) {
> + css = &root->css;
> + } else {
> + struct cgroup *next_cgroup;
> +
> + next_cgroup = cgroup_next_descendant_pre(
> + last_visited->css.cgroup,
> + root->css.cgroup);
> + if (next_cgroup)
> + css = cgroup_subsys_state(next_cgroup,
> + mem_cgroup_subsys_id);
Hmmm... wouldn't it be better to move the reclaim logic into a
function and do the following?
reclaim(root);
for_each_descendent_pre()
reclaim(descendant);
If this is a problem, I'd be happy to add a iterator which includes
the top node. I'd prefer controllers not using the next functions
directly.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>