From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170DD6B01FC for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:38:25 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Do not wait the full timeout on congestion_wait when there is no congestion Message-ID: <20100827093825.GF19556@csn.ul.ie> References: <1282835656-5638-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100826172038.GA6873@barrios-desktop> <20100827012147.GC7353@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100827012147.GC7353@localhost> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Wu Fengguang Cc: Minchan Kim , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Christian Ehrhardt , Johannes Weiner , Jan Kara , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rik van Riel , KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Li Shaohua List-ID: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:21:47AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > Minchan, > > It's much cleaner to keep the unchanged congestion_wait() and add a > congestion_wait_check() for converting problematic wait sites. The > too_many_isolated() wait is merely a protective mechanism, I won't > bother to improve it at the cost of more code. > This is what I've done. I dropped the patch again and am using wait_iff_congested(). I left the too_many_isolated() callers as congestion_wait(). -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org