On Mon, May 21 2018 at 10:19am -0400, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/21/18 8:03 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Sun, May 20 2018 at 6:25pm -0400, > > Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Jens - this series does the rest of the conversions that Christoph wanted, and > >> drops bioset_create(). > >> > >> Only lightly tested, but the changes are pretty mechanical. Based on your > >> for-next tree. > > > > By switching 'mempool_t *' to 'mempool_t' and 'bio_set *' to 'bio_set' > > you've altered the alignment of members in data structures. So I'll > > need to audit all the data structures you've modified in DM. > > > > Could we get the backstory on _why_ you're making this change? > > Would go a long way to helping me appreciate why this is a good use of > > anyone's time. > > Yeah, it's in the first series, it gets rid of a pointer indirection. "Allows mempools to be embedded in other structs, getting rid of a pointer indirection from allocation fastpaths." So this is about using contiguous memory or avoiding partial allocation failure? Or both? Or more to it? Just trying to fully appreciate the theory behind the perceived associated benefit. I do think the increased risk of these embedded bio_set and mempool_t themselves crossing cachelines, or struct members that follow them doing so, really detracts from these types of changes. Thanks, Mike
