[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190109182417.GO6310@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 10:24:17 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] /proc/stat: Reduce irqs counting performance
overhead
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 01:03:33PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> The paragraph above may be a bit misleading. This v2 patch actually
> touches very little on percpu accounting aspect of the IRQ counts. See
> patches 2 and 3 for the relevant changes which is just a few line of new
> codes. Please review the individual patches before Nak'ing.
>
> I could theoretically generalize them into a new set of percpu counting
> helpers, but the idea behind it is quite different from the use cases of
> percpu counter. So it may not be a good idea of adding it to there.
Did you even try just using the general purpose infrastructure that's
in place? If that shows a performance problem _then_ it's time to make
this special snowflake just a little more special. Not before.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists