On Wed 14-11-12 10:52:45, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Michal. > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:51:29AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > reclaim(root); > > > for_each_descendent_pre() > > > reclaim(descendant); > > > > We cannot do for_each_descendent_pre here because we do not iterate > > through the whole hierarchy all the time. Check shrink_zone. > > 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? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>