On Wed 05-06-13 01:44:56, Tejun Heo wrote: [...] > > alive. Sorry, I do not like it at all. I find it much better to clean up > > when the group is removed. Because doing things asynchronously just > > makes it more obscure. There is no reason to do such a thing on the > > background when we know _when_ to do the cleanup and that is definitely > > _not a hot path_. > > Yeah, that's true. I just wanna avoid the barrier dancing. Only one > of the ancestors can cache a memcg, right? No. All of them on the way up hierarchy. Basically each parent which ever triggered the reclaim caches reclaimers. > Walking up the tree scanning for cached ones and putting them should > work? Is that what you were suggesting? That was my first version of the patch I linked in the previous email. -- 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>