Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: more scalable list_sort()

[Dave Chinner]

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:35:51PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Burning CPU time to save on IO is a very valid tradeoff in
> > filesystem design - burning a few hundred millieseconds of CPU
> > time can result in savcwinge tens of seconds of IO time. Hence
> > passing big long lists to be sorted is not an indication of broken
> > design, it's an indication of understanding CPU time vs IO time
> > tradeoffs during design...
> 
> Burning long CPU time in kernel code without latency breaker code is always
> a sign of broken design.

It's a characteristic of a sub-optimal implementation, not bad
design. Plenty of code has been fixed over the years simply by
adding cond_resched() to loops that have triggered latency
warnings.

Similarly, adding cond_resched() to list_sort means you can stop
worrying about the scheduling latency impact of sorting long lists.
I fail to see why you're making such a big deal out of this.....

Cheers

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/