[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130125020943.GH2373@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:09:43 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, zab@...hat.com, bcrl@...ck.org,
jmoyer@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
tytso@....edu, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/32] Generic dynamic per cpu refcounting
Hello, again.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 06:03:40PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yeah, if we're aiming to replace refcnts in file and kobj, dynamic
> alloc may be justified. Hopefully, the accounting necessary to decide
> whethre to use percpu isn't too burdensome.
Ooh, I forgot one thing. We might not gain much by replacing file
refcnt w/ this. You can't really get cheaper than fget_light().
Also, while kobj destruction can still be considered an infrequent
operation, file destruction is not and people will get mighty unhappy
if you do synchronize_sched/rcu() from fput() synchronously.
So, I'm now back to "do we need dynamic allocation". What else do we
have to convert?
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