On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Wu Fengguang [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:41:48AM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:

quoted

Hi, Wu.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Wu Fengguang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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, 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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>