Hey, On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:55:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > 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. Oh, I meant only the ancestors can cache a memcg, so yeap. > > 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. Yeah, indeed. Johannes, what do you think? Between the recent cgroup iterator update and xchg(), we don't need the weak referencing and it's just wrong to have that level of complexity in memcg proper. 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>