From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:09:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1295543341.9039.588.camel@nimitz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110120164555.GA30922@kroah.com>
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 08:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:36:40AM -0600, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> > The root of this issue is in sysfs directory creation. Every time
> > a directory is created a string compare is done against sibling
> > directories ( see sysfs_find_dirent() ) to ensure we do not create
> > duplicates. The list of directory nodes in sysfs is kept as an
> > unsorted list which results in this being an exponentially longer
> > operation as the number of directories are created.
>
> Again, are you sure about this? I thought we resolved this issue in the
> past, but you were going to check it. Did you?
Just to be clear, simply reducing the number of kobjects can make these
patches worthwhile on their own. I originally figured that the
SECTION_SIZE would go up over time as systems got larger, and _that_
would keep the number of sections and number of sysfs objects down.
Well, that turned out to be wrong, and we're eating up a ton of memory
now. We can't fix the SECTION_SIZE easily, but we can reduce the number
of kobjects that we need to track the sections. *That* is the main
benefit I see from these patches.
I think there's a problem worth fixing, even ignoring the directory
creation issue (if it still exists).
-- Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-20 17:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-20 16:36 [PATCH 0/4] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections Nathan Fontenot
2011-01-20 16:43 ` [PATCH 1/4] Allow memory blocks to span multiple " Nathan Fontenot
2011-01-20 16:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] Update phys_index to [start|end]_section_nr Nathan Fontenot
2011-01-20 16:45 ` [PATCH 3/4]Define memory_block_size_bytes for powerpc/pseries Nathan Fontenot
2011-02-06 23:39 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-02-07 1:42 ` Greg KH
2011-01-20 16:45 ` [PATCH 0/4] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections Greg KH
2011-01-20 16:51 ` Nathan Fontenot
2011-01-20 17:25 ` Greg KH
2011-01-20 17:09 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2011-01-20 16:46 ` [PATCH 4/4] Define memory_block_size_bytes for x86_64 with CONFIG_X86_UV Nathan Fontenot
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-01-10 18:08 [PATCH 0/4] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections Nathan Fontenot
2011-01-10 18:44 ` Greg KH
2011-01-10 18:47 ` Nathan Fontenot
2011-01-10 19:11 ` Robin Holt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1295543341.9039.588.camel@nimitz \
--to=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).