Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:32:18 -0200
From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: riel@redhat.com, andrea@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][5/?] count writeback pages in nr_scanned
Message-ID: <20050105203217.GB17265@logos.cnet>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501031224400.25392@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com> <20050105020859.3192a298.akpm@osdl.org> <20050105180651.GD4597@dualathlon.random> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501051350150.22969@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com> <20050105174934.GC15739@logos.cnet> <20050105134457.03aca488.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050105134457.03aca488.akpm@osdl.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 941
Lines: 20


> The caller would need to wait on all the zones which can satisfy the
> caller's allocation request.  A bit messy, although not rocket science. 
> One would have to be careful to avoid additional CPU consumption due to
> delivery of multiple wakeups at each I/O completion.
> 
> We should be able to demonstrate that such a change really fixes some
> problem though.  Otherwise, why bother?

Agreed. The current scheme works well enough, we dont have spurious OOM kills
anymore, which is the only "problem" such change ought to fix. 

You might have performance increase in some situations I believe (because you 
have perzone waitqueues), but I agree its does not seem to be worth the
trouble.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/