[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180911220244.GF5631@dastard>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:02:44 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"Wangkai (Kevin C)" <wangkai86@...wei.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] fs: Don't need to put list_lru into its own
cacheline
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:18:24PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> The list_lru structure is essentially just a pointer to a table of
> per-node LRU lists. Even if CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM is defined, the list
> field is just used for LRU list registration and shrinker_id is set
> at initialization. Those fields won't need to be touched that often.
>
> So there is no point to make the list_lru structures to sit in their
> own cachelines.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Looks fine.
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists