Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:56:11 -0800
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org,
        broonie@kernel.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/5] rbtree: optimize frequent tree walks
Message-ID: <20200210155611.lfrddnolsyzktqne@linux-p48b>
References: <20200207180305.11092-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20200209174632.9c7b6ff20567853c05e5ee58@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200209174632.9c7b6ff20567853c05e5ee58@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 09 Feb 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:
>Seems that all the caller sites you've converted use a fairly small
>number of rbnodes, so the additional storage shouldn't be a big
>problem.  Are there any other sites you're eyeing?  If so, do you expect
>any of those will use a significant amount of memory for the nodes?

I also thought about converting the deadline scheduler to use these,
mainly benefiting pull_dl_task() but didn't get to it and I don't expect
the extra footprint to be prohibitive.

>
>And...  are these patches really worth merging?  Complexity is added,
>but what end-user benefit can we expect?

Yes they are worth merging, imo (which of course is biased :)

I don't think there is too much added complexity overall, particularly
considering that the user conversions are rather trivial. And even for
small trees (ie 100 nodes) we still benefit in a measurable way from
these optimizations.

Thanks,
Davidlohr