Hello, On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 02:51:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > The last 2 RFC patches were created in response to Andi's comment to have > coarser granularity than per-cpu. In this particular use case, I don't think > global list traversals are frequent enough to really have any noticeable > performance impact. So I don't have any benchmark number to support this > change. However, it may not be true for other future use cases. > > These 2 patches were created to gauge if using a per-subnode API for this > use case is a good idea or not. I am perfectly happy to keep it as per-cpu > and scrap the last 2 RFC patches. My main goal is to make this patchset more > acceptable to be moved forward instead of staying in limbo. I see. I don't think it makes sense to add a whole new API for a use case which doesn't really need it without any backing data. It probably would be best to revisit this when we're dealing with an actually problematic case. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
