From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Do not wait the full timeout on congestion_wait when there is no congestion Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:50:41 +0800 Message-ID: <20100827015041.GF7353@localhost> References: <1282835656-5638-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100826172038.GA6873@barrios-desktop> <20100827012147.GC7353@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Mel Gorman , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Christian Ehrhardt , Johannes Weiner , Jan Kara , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rik van Riel , KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "Li, Shaohua" To: Minchan Kim Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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 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(). > while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) { > congestion_wait_check(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10); > > /* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */ > if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) > return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX; > } Thanks, Fengguang -- 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: email@kvack.org