linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Do not wait the full timeout on congestion

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTin0PZu=ceoeyYa6qSv_piHL1yrfyEgTw35=gnex@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:02:52 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	"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 10:50 AM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> 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 <fengguang.wu@...el.com> 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 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/