linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][mm] [PATCH 3/4] Memory cgroup hierarchical reclaim (v3)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:33:14 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][mm] [PATCH 3/4] Memory cgroup hierarchical reclaim (v3)

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:52:47 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:40:13 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> I think of it as easy to update - as in the modularity, you can plug out
> >> hierarchical reclaim easily and implement your own hierarchical reclaim.
> >>
> > When I do so, I'll rewrite all, again.
> > 
> 
> I don't intend to ask you to rewrite it, rewrite all, I meant you as in a
> generic person. With hierarchy we will need weighted reclaim, which I'll add in
> later.
> 
> >>> Can you make this code iterative rather than recursive ?
> >>>
> >>> I don't like this kind of recursive call with complexed lock/unlock.
> >> I tried an iterative version, which ended up looking very ugly. I think the
> >> recursive version is easier to understand. What we do is a DFS walk - pretty
> >> standard algorithm.
> >>
> > But recursive one is not good for search-and-try algorithm.
> 
> OK, I'll post the iterative algorithm, but it is going to be dirty :)
> 
Ah, thanks. I think maybe you're right that ittrative one is dirty.
I want to compare before going further. 
Thank you for your patience.

Regards,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/