Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:23:56 -0400
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Rick Lindsley <ricklind@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency
 improvement
Message-ID: <20200619222356.GA13061@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <159237905950.89469.6559073274338175600.stgit@mickey.themaw.net>
 <20200619153833.GA5749@mtj.thefacebook.com>
 <16d9d5aa-a996-d41d-cbff-9a5937863893@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16d9d5aa-a996-d41d-cbff-9a5937863893@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 01:41:39PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote:
> On 6/19/20 8:38 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> > I don't have strong objections to the series but the rationales don't seem
> > particularly strong. It's solving a suspected problem but only half way. It
> > isn't clear whether this can be the long term solution for the problem
> > machine and whether it will benefit anyone else in a meaningful way either.
> 
> I don't understand your statement about solving the problem halfway. Could
> you elaborate?

Spending 5 minutes during boot creating sysfs objects doesn't seem like a
particularly good solution and I don't know whether anyone else would
experience similar issues. Again, not necessarily against improving the
scalability of kernfs code but the use case seems a bit out there.

> > I think Greg already asked this but how are the 100,000+ memory objects
> > used? Is that justified in the first place?
> 
> They are used for hotplugging and partitioning memory. The size of the
> segments (and thus the number of them) is dictated by the underlying
> hardware.

This sounds so bad. There gotta be a better interface for that, right?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun