[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160725174132.GC19588@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:41:32 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@....com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] vfs: Use dlock list for SB's s_inodes list
Hello, Christoph.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 08:48:25AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> > - Add a new patch to make the percpu head structure cacheline aligned
> > to prevent cacheline contention from disrupting the performance
> > of nearby percpu variables.
>
> It would be better not to use the percpu allocation etc for this.
> Given the frequency of off node data access I would say that the data
> structure does not qualify as per cpu data. You have per cpu data items
> yes but this is not used as per cpu data.
I don't get it. What's the harm of using percpu memory here? Other
percpu data structures have remote access too. They're to a lower
degree but I don't see a clear demarcation line and making addtions
per-cpu seems to have significant benefits here. If there's a better
way of splitting the list and locking, sure, let's try that but short
of that I don't see anything wrong with doing this per-cpu.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists