On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>