On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:20:21PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yo,
>
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:17:04PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > That could be an advantage, yes. But keep in mind that every
> > destruction has to perform this invalidation operation against the
> > global root_mem_cgroup's nr_node * nr_zone * nr_priority_levels
> > iterators, so you can't muck around forever, while possibly holding a
> > lock at this level. It's not a hot path, but you don't want to turn
> > it into one, either.
>
> nr_node tends to be pretty low in most cases, so it shouldn't be a
> problem there but yeah with high enough nodes and high enough rate of
Also, do we need to hold a lock? It doesn't have to be completely
strict, so we might as well get away with something like,
for_each_cached_pos() {
if (hint == me) {
/* simple clearing implementation, we prolly wanna push it forward */
cached = xchg(hint, NULL);
if (cached)
css_put(cached);
}
}
It still scans the memory but wouldn't create any contention.
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>