Hey, On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:48:01PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Ooh, right, we don't need cleanup of the cached cursors on destruction > > if we get this correct - especially if we make cursors point to the > > next cgroup to visit as self is always the first one to visit. > > You would need to pin the next-to-visit memcg as well, so you need a > cleanup on the removal. But that'd be one of the descendants of the said cgroup and there can no descendant left when the cgroup is being removed. What am I missing? 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>