[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxC0wa=TjpfVQ8-iQEzrg0pwsTNxGZCT_JSZJFTR0GKkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:25:52 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.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
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> So I propose testing the attached trivial patch. It may not do
> anything at all. But the existing code is actually doing extra work
> just to be fragile, in case the scenario above can happen.
Side note: the patch compiles for me. But that is literally ALL the
testing it has gotten. I spent more time writing that email trying to
explain what my thinking was about that patch, than I spent anywhere
else on that patch.
So it may be garbage. Caveat probator.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists