[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BC6BE78.1030503@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:28 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
CC: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Bob Liu <lliubbo@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] change alloc function in pcpu_alloc_pages
Hello,
On 04/15/2010 10:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi, Tejun.
>> This being a pretty cold path, I don't really see much benefit in
>> converting it to alloc_pages_node_exact(). It ain't gonna make any
>> difference. I'd rather stay with the safer / boring one unless
>> there's a pressing reason to convert.
>
> Actually, It's to weed out not-good API usage as well as some
> performance gain. But I don't think to need it strongly.
> Okay. Please keep in mind about this and correct it if you confirms
> it in future. :)
Hmm... if most users are converting over to alloc_pages_node_exact(),
I think it would be better to convert percpu too. I thought it was a
performance optimization (of rather silly kind too). So, this is to
weed out -1 node id usage? Wouldn't it be better to update
alloc_pages_node() such that it whines once per each caller if it's
called with -1 node id and after updating most users convert the
warning into WARN_ON_ONCE()? Having two variants for this seems
rather extreme to me.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists