On 09.08.2018 00:31, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 12:27:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> [CC Josh - the whole series is
>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain]
>>
>> On Wed 08-08-18 13:17:44, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> On 08.0
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:07:08PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 07:31:25AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > IMO, we've had enough recent bugs to deal with from shrinkers being
> > called before the filesystem is set up and from trying to handle
> > allocation errors during s
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 07:31:25AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> IMO, we've had enough recent bugs to deal with from shrinkers being
> called before the filesystem is set up and from trying to handle
> allocation errors during setup. Do we really want to make shrinker
> shutdown just as prone to mis
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 04:02:29PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:02 AM Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 07:30:13PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > On 08.08.2018 19:23, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > > On 08.08.2018 19:13, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > >> On We
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:02 AM Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 07:30:13PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > On 08.08.2018 19:23, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > On 08.08.2018 19:13, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:17:44PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > >>> On 08.08.
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 12:27:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC Josh - the whole series is
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain]
>
> On Wed 08-08-18 13:17:44, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > On 08.08.2018 10:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 07:30:13PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 08.08.2018 19:23, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > On 08.08.2018 19:13, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:17:44PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >>> On 08.08.2018 10:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 18:37:36, K
On 08.08.2018 19:23, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 08.08.2018 19:13, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:17:44PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> On 08.08.2018 10:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 07-08-18 18:37:36, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
>>
On 08.08.2018 19:13, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:17:44PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> On 08.08.2018 10:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 07-08-18 18:37:36, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
>>>
>>> The las
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:17:44PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 08.08.2018 10:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 07-08-18 18:37:36, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
> >> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
> >
> > The last time somebody tried to do this there was a
Hi Kirill,
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 12:59:40 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> On 08.08.2018 04:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > So what sort of overheads (in terms of code size and performance) are
> > we adding by having SRCU enabled where it used not to be?
>
> SRCU is unconditionally enabled for
[CC Josh - the whole series is
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/153365347929.19074.12509495712735843805.stgit@localhost.localdomain]
On Wed 08-08-18 13:17:44, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 08.08.2018 10:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 07-08-18 18:37:36, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> This patch kills all CONFIG_S
On 08.08.2018 10:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 18:37:36, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
>> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
>
> The last time somebody tried to do this there was a pushback due to
> kernel tinyfication. So this should really give some nu
On 08.08.2018 04:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Kirill,
>
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 18:37:36 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>
>> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
>> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai
>
> So what sort of overheads (in terms of code size and perf
On 08.08.2018 04:05, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Kirill,
>
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 18:37:36 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>
>> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
>> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai
>> ---
>> drivers/base/core.c
On Tue 07-08-18 18:37:36, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
The last time somebody tried to do this there was a pushback due to
kernel tinyfication. So this should really give some numbers about the
code size increase. Also why can't
Hi Kirill,
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 18:37:36 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai
So what sort of overheads (in terms of code size and performance) are
we adding by having SRCU enabled where it used
Hi Kirill,
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 18:37:36 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai
> ---
> drivers/base/core.c| 42
>
> include/linux/device.h
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 18:37:36 +0300
Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
> the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
Can you add the rationale for removing the SRCU config in the change log
please.
Thanks!
-- Steve
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai
> ---
> drivers/base/core.c
This patch kills all CONFIG_SRCU defines and
the code under !CONFIG_SRCU.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai
---
drivers/base/core.c| 42
include/linux/device.h |2 -
include/linux/rcutiny.h
20 matches
Mail list logo