From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262406AbTEFGek (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 02:34:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262409AbTEFGej (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 02:34:39 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:8677 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262406AbTEFGei (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 02:34:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 22:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20030505.223944.23027730.davem@redhat.com> To: akpm@digeo.com Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, dipankar@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmalloc_percpu From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20030505234248.7cc05f43.akpm@digeo.com> References: <20030505.211606.28803580.davem@redhat.com> <20030505224815.07e5240c.akpm@digeo.com> <20030505234248.7cc05f43.akpm@digeo.com> X-FalunGong: Information control. X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Andrew Morton Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 23:42:48 -0700 Can't think of anything very clever there, except to go and un-percpuify the disk stats. I think that's best, really - disk requests only come in at 100 to 200 per second - atomic_t's or int-plus-per-disk-spinlock will be fine. Use some spinlock we already have to be holding during the counter bumps. Frankly, these things don't need to be %100 accurate. Using a new spinlock or an atomic_t for this seems rediculious.