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

quoted text
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:40:13 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.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

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