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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210929235936.2859271-1-shakeelb@google.com> <YVszNI97NAAYpHpm@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CALvZod5OKz=7pFpxCt1CONPyJO4wR5t+PH0nzdbFBT1SYpjrsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YVs9eJnNJYwF/3f3@slm.duckdns.org> <CALvZod47r=9j_MhZz9ngWv_JE4oqF1CrXTOQ2GpSSNFftZAsVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YVtGHoboSix3rexr@slm.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <YVtGHoboSix3rexr@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Oct 2021 11:35:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod6fwur--Q6Kh6GSPRR_16DQdrNDyuZgYjgncDpPUENWVg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: rstat: optimize flush through speculative test
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 11:21 AM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
[...]
> What do you think about that approach? While the proposed patch looks fine,
> it kinda bothers me that it's a very partial optimization - ie. if flush
> frequency is high enough for this to matter, that for_each_possible_cpu()
> scanning loop really isn't appropriate.
>

Makes sense. I will take a stab at that.