RE: [RFC 00/10] implement alternative and much simpler id allocator

From: Tejun Heo [mailto:hte...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tejun Heo > Ah, yeah, great to see the silly implementation being replaced the > radix tree. ida_pre_get() looks suspicious tho. idr_preload() > immedicately being followed by idr_preload_end() probably is broken. > Maybe what we need is

Re: [RFC 00/10] implement alternative and much simpler id allocator

Hello, Matthew. On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 05:35:17PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I know the preload followed by preload_end looks wrong. I don't > think it's broken though. If we get preempted, then the worst > situation is that we'll end up with the memory we preallocated being > allocated to

Re: [RFC 00/10] implement alternative and much simpler id allocator

Hello, On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:01:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 02:22:55 +0100 Rasmus Villemoes > wrote: > > > TL;DR: these patches save 250 KB of memory, with more low-hanging > > fruit ready to pick. > > > > While browsing through the

Re: [PATCH resend] block_dev: don't test bdev->bd_contains when it is not stable.

On 12/11/2016 05:29 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > bdev->bd_contains is not stable before calling __blkdev_get(). > When __blkdev_get() is called on a parition with ->bd_openers == 0 > it sets > bdev->bd_contains = bdev; > which is not correct for a partition. > After a call to __blkdev_get()