Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-06 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> > OK, so you disagree with Miklos' 2nd point here: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/4/137 > > Yup, silly man thought that "congestion_wait" has something to do with > congestion ;) I think it sort-of used to, once. Oh well. I _usually_ do actually read the code, but this seemed so

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-06 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:01:57 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:42:21 +0200 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Now that we have per BDI dirty throttling is makes sense to also have oer > > >

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-06 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:42:21 +0200 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Now that we have per BDI dirty throttling is makes sense to also have oer > > BDI > > congestion feedback; why wait on another device if the current one is not > >

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-06 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:42:21 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that we have per BDI dirty throttling is makes sense to also have oer BDI congestion feedback; why wait on another device if the current one is not congested.

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-06 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:01:57 +0200 Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:42:21 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that we have per BDI dirty throttling is makes sense to also have oer BDI congestion

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-06 Thread Miklos Szeredi
OK, so you disagree with Miklos' 2nd point here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/4/137 Yup, silly man thought that congestion_wait has something to do with congestion ;) I think it sort-of used to, once. Oh well. I _usually_ do actually read the code, but this seemed so obvious... I'll

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-05 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:42:21 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Now that we have per BDI dirty throttling is makes sense to also have oer BDI > congestion feedback; why wait on another device if the current one is not > congested. Similar comments apply. congestion_wait() should be called

[PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-05 Thread root
Now that we have per BDI dirty throttling is makes sense to also have oer BDI congestion feedback; why wait on another device if the current one is not congested. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- drivers/block/pktcdvd.c |2 - drivers/md/dm-crypt.c |7 +++--

Re: [PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-05 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:42:21 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that we have per BDI dirty throttling is makes sense to also have oer BDI congestion feedback; why wait on another device if the current one is not congested. Similar comments apply. congestion_wait() should be called

[PATCH 12/12] mm: per BDI congestion feedback

2007-04-05 Thread root
Now that we have per BDI dirty throttling is makes sense to also have oer BDI congestion feedback; why wait on another device if the current one is not congested. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- drivers/block/pktcdvd.c |2 - drivers/md/dm-crypt.c |7 +++--