[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100827093825.GF19556@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:38:25 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Do not wait the full timeout on
congestion_wait when there is no congestion
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 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists