linux-kernel - Re: [patch -v4 4/8] memcg: enhance memcg iterator to support predicates

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]

Message-ID: <20130605073728.GC15997@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:37:28 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch -v4 4/8] memcg: enhance memcg iterator to support
 predicates

On Tue 04-06-13 13:54:26, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:48:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I really don't think memcg can afford to add more mess than there
> > > already is.  Let's try to get things right with each change, please.
> > 
> > Is this really about inside vs. outside skipping? I think this is a
> > general improvement to the code. I really prefer not duplicating common
> > code and skipping handling is such a code (we have a visitor which can
> > control the walk). With a side bonus that it doesn't have to pollute
> > vmscan more than necessary.
> > 
> > Please be more specific about _what_ is so ugly about this interface so
> > that it matters so much.
> 
> Can you please try the other approach and see how it looks? 

Tejun, I do not have infinite amount of time and this is barely a
priority for the patchset. The core part is to be able to skip
nodes/subtrees which are not worth reclaiming, remember?

I have already expressed my priorities for inside skipping
decisions. You are just throwing "let's try a different way" handwavy
suggestions. I have no problem to pull the skip logic outside of
iterators if more people think that this is _really_ important. But
until then I take it as a really low priority that shouldn't delay the
patchset without a good reason.

So please try to focus on the technical parts of the patchset if you
want to help with the review. I really appreciate suggestions but please
do not get down to bike scheding.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/