From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org,
broonie@kernel.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/5] rbtree: optimize frequent tree walks
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:35:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200210143546.4491d9715f1c4a0a1de999ca@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200210155611.lfrddnolsyzktqne@linux-p48b>
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:56:11 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Feb 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >Seems that all the caller sites you've converted use a fairly small
> >number of rbnodes, so the additional storage shouldn't be a big
> >problem. Are there any other sites you're eyeing? If so, do you expect
> >any of those will use a significant amount of memory for the nodes?
>
> I also thought about converting the deadline scheduler to use these,
> mainly benefiting pull_dl_task() but didn't get to it and I don't expect
> the extra footprint to be prohibitive.
>
> >
> >And... are these patches really worth merging? Complexity is added,
> >but what end-user benefit can we expect?
>
> Yes they are worth merging, imo (which of course is biased :)
>
> I don't think there is too much added complexity overall, particularly
> considering that the user conversions are rather trivial. And even for
> small trees (ie 100 nodes) we still benefit in a measurable way from
> these optimizations.
>
Measurable for microbenchmarks, I think? But what benefit will a user
see, running a workload that is cared about?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-10 22:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-07 18:03 [PATCH -next 0/5] rbtree: optimize frequent tree walks Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-07 18:03 ` [PATCH 1/5] lib/rbtree: introduce linked-list rbtree interface Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-10 20:07 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-02-10 21:28 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-10 21:44 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-02-07 18:03 ` [PATCH 2/5] proc/sysctl: optimize proc_sys_readdir Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-10 20:08 ` Luis Chamberlain
2020-02-07 18:03 ` [PATCH 3/5] regmap: optimize sync() and drop() regcache callbacks Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-10 13:11 ` Mark Brown
2020-02-07 18:03 ` [PATCH 4/5] vfio/type1: optimize dma_list tree iterations Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-07 18:03 ` [PATCH 5/5] uprobes: optimize build_probe_list() Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-10 1:46 ` [PATCH -next 0/5] rbtree: optimize frequent tree walks Andrew Morton
2020-02-10 15:56 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-10 22:35 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2020-02-13 15:50 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-11 11:20 ` Mark Brown
2020-02-13 15:55 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-13 16:56 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200210143546.4491d9715f1c4a0a1de999ca@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).