From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:36938 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726221AbfAISYU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:24:20 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 10:24:17 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] /proc/stat: Reduce irqs counting performance
 overhead
Message-ID: <20190109182417.GO6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <1547054628-12703-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190109174403.GN6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <f6302369-9eda-ef58-4f18-3dc9ffbc31f1@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f6302369-9eda-ef58-4f18-3dc9ffbc31f1@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 01:03:33PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> The paragraph above may be a bit misleading. This v2 patch actually
> touches very little on percpu accounting aspect of the IRQ counts. See
> patches 2 and 3 for the relevant changes which is just a few line of new
> codes. Please review the individual patches before Nak'ing.
> 
> I could theoretically generalize them into a new set of percpu counting
> helpers, but the idea behind it is quite different from the use cases of
> percpu counter. So it may not be a good idea of adding it to there.

Did you even try just using the general purpose infrastructure that's
in place?  If that shows a performance problem _then_ it's time to make
this special snowflake just a little more special.  Not before.