From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C5F96B01F1 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:02:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by iwn33 with SMTP id 33so2791445iwn.14 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:02:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100827015041.GF7353@localhost> References: <1282835656-5638-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100826172038.GA6873@barrios-desktop> <20100827012147.GC7353@localhost> <20100827015041.GF7353@localhost> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:02:52 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Do not wait the full timeout on congestion_wait when there is no congestion From: Minchan Kim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Wu Fengguang Cc: Mel Gorman , "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 10:50 AM, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:41:48AM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote: >> Hi, Wu. >> >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:21 AM, 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. >> >> You means following as? > > No, I mean do not change the too_many_isolated() related code at all :) > And to use congestion_wait_check() in other places that we can prove > there is a problem that can be rightly fixed by changing to > congestion_wait_check(). I always suffer from understanding your comment. Apparently, my eyes have a problem. ;( This patch is dependent of Mel's series. With changing congestion_wait with just return when no congestion, it would have CPU hogging in too_many_isolated. I think it would apply in Li's congestion_wait_check, too. If no change is current congestion_wait, we doesn't need this patch. Still, maybe I can't understand your comment. Sorry. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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