From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB158C352A3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF392080C for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727857AbgBJQHF (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:07:05 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33104 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727120AbgBJQHF (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 11:07:05 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C98ACD0; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:56:11 -0800 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Andrew Morton 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 Message-ID: <20200210155611.lfrddnolsyzktqne@linux-p48b> References: <20200207180305.11092-1-dave@stgolabs.net> <20200209174632.9c7b6ff20567853c05e5ee58@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200209174632.9c7b6ff20567853c05e5ee58@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks, Davidlohr