Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] 9p: Add mempools for RPCs
Date:   Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:59:55 +0200
Message-ID: <2478340.1TyedNfDZE@silver>
In-Reply-To: <20220704141946.4yqo2o6ih5zrqjmy@moria.home.lan>
References: <20220704010945.C230AC341C7@smtp.kernel.org> <1877940.0u7pHPiiHj@silver>
 <20220704141946.4yqo2o6ih5zrqjmy@moria.home.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Montag, 4. Juli 2022 16:19:46 CEST Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 03:39:32PM +0200, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > So simple that it already had one obvious bug (at least). But as it seems
> > that Dominique already supports your patch, I refrain from enumerating
> > more reasons.
> 
> So snippy.

Yeah, the tone makes the music. If you adjust yours, then I'll do, too.

> > > > However that's exactly what I was going to address with my already
> > > > posted
> > > > patches (relevant patches regarding this issue here being 9..12):
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1640870037.git.linux_oss@crudebyte.c
> > > > om/
> > > > And in the cover letter (section "STILL TODO" ... "3.") I was
> > > > suggesting
> > > > to
> > > > subsequently subdivide kmem_cache_alloc() into e.g. 4 allocation size
> > > > categories? Because that's what my already posted patches do anyway.
> > > 
> > > Yeah that sounds like you're just reimplementing kmalloc.
> > 
> > Quite exaggerated statement.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that kmalloc() is just a frontend around
> kmem_cache_alloc() that picks the cache based on the size parameter... so...
> still sounds like you are?
> 
> Not that there's never a legitimate reason to do so, but it does raise an
> eyebrow.

So you are saying this change was useless as well then?
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/91a76be37ff89795526c452a6799576b03bec501

Like already discussed in the other email, I omitted those cache size
granularity changes for good reasons, until proofen by benchmark that they
would actually help.

Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck