From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932469AbcHSXft (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:35:49 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:60494 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932105AbcHSXfn (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:35:43 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:35:46 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , Mathieu Desnoyers , Peter Zijlstra , Boqun Feng , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Watson , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux API , Paul Turner , Andrew Morton , Russell King , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Hunter , Chris Lameter , Ben Maurer , Steven Rostedt , Josh Triplett , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Michael Kerrisk Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 1/9] Restartable sequences system call Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1471637274-13583-1-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <1471637274-13583-2-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20160819205611.GF5871@two.firstfloor.org> <20160819211946.GJ3482@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16081923-0024-0000-0000-0000145F09BD X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00005617; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000183; SDB=6.00747079; UDB=6.00352304; IPR=6.00519601; BA=6.00004671; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00012399; XFM=3.00000011; UTC=2016-08-19 23:35:41 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16081923-0025-0000-0000-000043B8EA99 Message-Id: <20160819233546.GK3482@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-08-19_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1608190289 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 02:32:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 01:56:11PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > >> > >> malloc is the primary target I believe. Saves lots of memory to keep > >> caches per CPU rather than per thread. > > > > Agreed, a competent default malloc() in glibc would be a very nice change > > from the current state. > > I agree that malloc can be a very good target for something like this, > but it is also something that is quite complicated. A general-purpose > allocator that could be used by glibc and has not just the performance > but the debug stuff etc that people inevitably want is a big project. > And then the people who have special needs end up writing their own > allocators anyway, just because they care about certain layout and > access patterns... > > Put another way: I'd really like to see some real numbers and use, > rather than "this can be used for.." No argument here! Thanx, Paul