On 01/21/2013 12:38 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 21-01-13 11:33:20, Glauber Costa wrote: >> On 01/18/2013 07:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>>> - spin_lock_init(&memcg->move_lock); >>>>> + memcg->swappiness = mem_cgroup_swappiness(parent); >>> Please move this up to oom_kill_disable and use_hierarchy >>> initialization. >> >> One thing: wouldn't moving it to inside use_hierarchy be a change of >> behavior here? > > I do not see how it would change the behavior. But maybe I wasn't clear > enough. I just wanted to make all three: > memcg->use_hierarchy = parent->use_hierarchy; > memcg->oom_kill_disable = parent->oom_kill_disable; > memcg->swappiness = mem_cgroup_swappiness(parent); > > in the same visual block so that we can split the function into three > parts. Inherited values which don't depend on use_hierarchy, those that > depend on use_hierarchy and the rest that depends on the previous > decisions (kmem e.g.). > Makes sense? > Yes. I misunderstood you, believing you wanted the swappiness assignment to go inside the use_hierarchy block. -- 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>