On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 02:46:23PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 5/31/24 11:04, Byungchul Park wrote: > ... > > I don't believe you do not agree with the concept itself. Thing is > > the current version is not good enough. I will do my best by doing > > what I can do. > > More performance is good. I agree with that. > > But it has to be weighed against the risk and the complexity. The more > I look at this approach, the more I think this is not a good trade off. > There's a lot of risk and a lot of complexity and we haven't seen the > full complexity picture. The gaps are being fixed by adding complexity > in new subsystems (the VFS in this case). > > There are going to be winners and losers, and this version for example > makes file writes lose performance. > > Just to be crystal clear: I disagree with the concept of leaving stale > TLB entries in place in an attempt to gain performance. FWIW, I agree with Dave. This feels insanely dangerous and I don't think you're paranoid enough about things that can go wrong.
