Re: dentry bloat.
From: Matt Mackall
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 09:57:02 EST
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:46:58AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 10:27, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > > Matt Mackall wrote:
> > >
> > > >One also wonders about whether all the RCU stuff is needed on UP. I'm
> > > >not sure if I grok all the finepoints here, but it looks like the
> > > >answer is no and that we can make struct_rcu head empty and have
> > > >call_rcu fall directly through to the callback. This would save
> > > >something like 16-32 bytes (32/64bit), not to mention a bunch of
> > > >dinking around with lists and whatnot.
> > > >
> > > >So what am I missing?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Preempt can happen anytime, I believe.
> > ok so for UP-non-preempt we can still get those 16 bytes back from the
> > dentry....
> I suppose so. And on small SMP, really. We chose not to play those games
> early on so the code got the best testing coverage.
Ok, I can spin something up. I'll start with a generic no-RCU-on-UP
and then we can think about the small SMP case a bit later.
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/