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:   Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:07:29 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 1vier1@web.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] ipc/util.{c,h}: Use binary search for max_idx
Message-ID: <20210425180729.7ew42ab5ygstbwm4@offworld>
References: <20210425075208.11777-1-manfred@colorfullife.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210425075208.11777-1-manfred@colorfullife.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20201120
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021, Manfred Spraul wrote:

>2nd version of the patch:
>@Andrew: Could you add the patch to your mm tree, as candidate for
>linux-next?
>
>Note:
>I have tried to remove the ids->max_idx cache entirely. Unfortunately,
>this causes a significant slow-down of semstat(,,IPC_STAT):
>   * no object allocated, no ipcmni_extended: +50%
>   * no object allocated, with ipcmni_extended: +80%
>   * 30 objects allocated, with large gaps, no ipcmni_extended:
>           +350%
>Thus I haven't removed ids->max_id.

Right, IPC_STAT is the main usecase for max_id. But I'm not sure why
you were looking to remove it in the first place - or was it just to
avoid this patch altogether?

Thanks,
Davidlohr