On 07/12/2016 02:57 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
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.
I am fine with that. BTW, do you think patches 1-5 are good enough to be
merged in a future release or is there further improvement that needs to
be made?
Thanks,
Longman
--
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
