Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752609AbdHNIur (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 14 Aug 2017 04:50:47 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:59819 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750994AbdHNIup (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 14 Aug 2017 04:50:45 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.220.163
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:50:42 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
        "karam . lee" <karam.lee@lge.com>, seungho1.park@lge.com,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] fs: use on-stack-bio if backing device has
 BDI_CAP_SYNC capability
Message-ID: <20170814085042.GG26913@bbox>
References: <1502175024-28338-3-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org>
 <20170808124959.GB31390@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20170808132904.GC31390@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20170809015113.GB32338@bbox>
 <20170809023122.GF31390@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20170809024150.GA32471@bbox>
 <20170810030433.GG31390@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CAA9_cmekE9_PYmNnVmiOkyH2gq5o8=uvEKnAbMWw5nBX-zE69g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170811104615.GA14397@lst.de>
 <20c5b30a-b787-1f46-f997-7542a87033f8@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20c5b30a-b787-1f46-f997-7542a87033f8@kernel.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1129
Lines: 27

Hi Jens,

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:26:59AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/11/2017 04:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 08:06:24PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> I like it, but do you think we should switch to sbvec[<constant>] to
> >> preclude pathological cases where nr_pages is large?
> > 
> > Yes, please.
> > 
> > Then I'd like to see that the on-stack bio even matters for
> > mpage_readpage / mpage_writepage.  Compared to all the buffer head
> > overhead the bio allocation should not actually matter in practice.
> 
> I'm skeptical for that path, too. I also wonder how far we could go
> with just doing a per-cpu bio recycling facility, to reduce the cost
> of having to allocate a bio. The on-stack bio parts are fine for
> simple use case, where simple means that the patch just special
> cases the allocation, and doesn't have to change much else.
> 
> I had a patch for bio recycling and batched freeing a year or two
> ago, I'll see if I can find and resurrect it.

So, you want to go with per-cpu bio recycling approach to
remove rw_page?

So, do you want me to hold this patchset?