[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50A45729.4000203@parallels.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:44:57 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] rework mem_cgroup iterator
On 11/14/2012 10:41 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Glauber.
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:17:51PM +0100, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> Why can't we reuse the scheduler iterator and move it to kernel/cgroup.c
>> ? It already exists, provide sane ordering, and only relies on parent
>> information - which cgroup core already have - to do the walk.
>
> Hmmm... we can but I personally much prefer for_each_*() iterators
> over callback based ones. It's just much easier to share states
> across an iteration and follow the logic. walk_tg_tree_from() does
> have the benefit of being able to combine pre and post visits in the
> same walk, which doesn't seem to have any user at the moment.
>
> Thanks.
>
Is there any particular reason why we can't do the other way around
then, and use a for_each_*() for sched walks? Without even consider what
I personally prefer, what I really don't like is to have two different
cgroup walkers when it seems like we could very well have just one.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists