From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756111Ab1LVWJV (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:09:21 -0500 Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:54889 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750924Ab1LVWJR (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:09:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:09:11 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Andrew Morton Cc: avi@redhat.com, nate@cpanel.net, cl@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, vgoyal@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] block, mempool, percpu: implement percpu mempool and fix blkcg percpu alloc deadlock Message-ID: <20111222220911.GK17084@google.com> References: <1324590326-10135-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20111222135925.de3221c8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111222135925.de3221c8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 01:59:25PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > How about we just delete those statistics and then this patchset? > > Or how about we change those statistics to not do percpu allocations, > then delete this patchset? I'm not against above both but apparently those percpu stats reduced CPU overhead significantly. > Or how about we fix the percpu memory allocation code so that it > propagates the gfp flags, then delete this patchset? Oh, no, this is gonna make things *way* more complex. I tried. If we're gonna have many more NOIO percpu users, which I don't think we would or should, that might make sense but, for fringe cases, extending mempool to cover percpu is a much better sized solution. Thanks. -- tejun