On Tue 04-06-13 13:54:26, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:48:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I really don't think memcg can afford to add more mess than there > > > already is. Let's try to get things right with each change, please. > > > > Is this really about inside vs. outside skipping? I think this is a > > general improvement to the code. I really prefer not duplicating common > > code and skipping handling is such a code (we have a visitor which can > > control the walk). With a side bonus that it doesn't have to pollute > > vmscan more than necessary. > > > > Please be more specific about _what_ is so ugly about this interface so > > that it matters so much. > > Can you please try the other approach and see how it looks? Tejun, I do not have infinite amount of time and this is barely a priority for the patchset. The core part is to be able to skip nodes/subtrees which are not worth reclaiming, remember? I have already expressed my priorities for inside skipping decisions. You are just throwing "let's try a different way" handwavy suggestions. I have no problem to pull the skip logic outside of iterators if more people think that this is _really_ important. But until then I take it as a really low priority that shouldn't delay the patchset without a good reason. So please try to focus on the technical parts of the patchset if you want to help with the review. I really appreciate suggestions but please do not get down to bike scheding. -- 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>