From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932208AbbFWAbj (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:31:39 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:54119 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753386AbbFWAbX (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:31:23 -0400 X-Helo: d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com X-MailFrom: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:31:19 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Dave Hansen , Andi Kleen , dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.cz, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, eparis@redhat.com, john@johnmccutchan.com, rlove@rlove.org, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: optimize inotify/fsnotify code for unwatched files Message-ID: <20150623003119.GF3892@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20150619233306.GT25760@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <5584B62F.5080506@sr71.net> <20150620022135.GF3913@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5585AAA0.1030305@sr71.net> <20150621013058.GH3913@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150622132821.GB12596@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150622151121.GK3913@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150622152013.GW3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150622162949.GA3892@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150622190308.GY3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150622190308.GY3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15062300-8236-0000-0000-00000C8F50AE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:03:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:29:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > I believe that there still are some cases. But why would offline > > CPUs seem so iffy? CPUs coming up execute code before they are fully > > operational, and during that time, much of the kernel views them as > > being offline. Yet they do have to execute significant code in order > > to get themselves set up. > > I'm thinking we do far too much during bringup and tear-down as it is. > But yes maybe. Boot, suspend, and hibernation indeed would be faster if we did less, but we still will have to do something. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/