[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170815031524.GC28715@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:15:24 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk
> That is what the patch does now, and that is why I dislike the patch.
>
> So I _am_ NAK'ing the patch if nobody is willing to even try alternatives.
Ok, perhaps larger hash table is the right solution for this one.
But what should we do when some other (non page) wait queue runs into the
same problem?
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists