From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i11so166451nzh.26 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:19:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:19:45 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Sp=E5ng?=" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8] mem_notify v5: introduce /dev/mem_notify new device (the core of this patch series) In-Reply-To: <20080124132014.1769.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080124130348.1760.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080124132014.1769.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox List-ID: Hi KOSAKI, On 1/24/08, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > +#define PROC_WAKEUP_GUARD (10*HZ) [...] > + timeout = info->last_proc_notify + PROC_WAKEUP_GUARD; If only one or a few processes are using the system I think 10 seconds is a little long time to wait before they get the notification again. Can we decrease this value? Or make it configurable under /proc? Or make it lower with fewer users? Something like: timeout = info->last_proc_notify + min(mem_notify_users, PROC_WAKEUP_GUARD); Cheers, Daniel -- 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