From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com (e32.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e32.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4671EB7103 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:51:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by e32.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p0KGfjxB024111 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:41:45 -0700 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p0KGpkAp156610 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:51:46 -0700 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p0KGpja4028708 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:51:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4D386820.5080902@austin.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:51:44 -0600 From: Nathan Fontenot MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections References: <4D386498.9080201@austin.ibm.com> <20110120164555.GA30922@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20110120164555.GA30922@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Robin Holt List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 01/20/2011 10:45 AM, 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? > Yes, the string compare is still present in the sysfs code. There was discussion around this sometime last year when I sent a patch out that stored the directory entries in something other than a linked list. That patch was rejected but it was agreed that something should be done. -Nathan