[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53571DA5.1010603@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:55:49 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
Monam Agarwal <monamagarwal123@...il.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...bit.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] idr: reduce the number of MAX_IDR_FREE
On 04/23/2014 03:58 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 06:16:19PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Number of idr_layer structs to leave in free list.
>> + * When idr is not empty, we need atmost (MAX_IDR_LEVEL - 1) idr_layers
>> + * to build up and atmost (MAX_IDR_LEVEL - 1) idr_layers to allocate down.
>> + * When idr is empty need atmost MAX_IDR_LEVEL layers.
>> + */
>> +#define MAX_IDR_FREE max((MAX_IDR_LEVEL * 2 - 2), MAX_IDR_LEVEL)
>
> I don't know. Do we really wanna be this sophiscated about it when
> the cost of mistake would be an unexpected id allocation failure which
> would *EXTREMELY* difficult to track down or reproduce? Let's please
> keep it dumb and safe.
Do you mean "I need additional free layers to
hide any possible bugs"? let me nervous.
> With preloading we aren't even caching it
> per-idr. I don't think this is something we want to do.
Understood.
>
> Nacked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
> Thanks.
>
--
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