Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753098AbdHODP0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:15:26 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:35183 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752326AbdHODPZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:15:25 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,376,1498546800"; d="scan'208";a="140261034" Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:15:24 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Tim Chen , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Kan Liang , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Jan Kara , linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk Message-ID: <20170815031524.GC28715@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <84c7f26182b7f4723c0fe3b34ba912a9de92b8b7.1502758114.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> <20170815022743.GB28715@tassilo.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 315 Lines: 10 > 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