From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:18:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:18:02 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]:33979 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 03:18:01 -0500 Message-Id: <200302250828.h1P8S5s04503@owlet.beaverton.ibm.com> To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] Make diskstats per-cpu using kmalloc_percpu In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:06:54 +0530." <20030225073654.GB28052@in.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:28:05 -0800 From: Rick Lindsley Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This version makes the disk stats on struct gendisk per-cpu. I am working on making the per partition stats per-cpu too (struct hd_struct). In general I'm in favor of this. It seems intuitive to me that counters of this type should be per-cpu. But the question is, do we actually see any gains? At the very least, are we sure we've not introduced any degradation? Has any of your testing so far been measuring performance or just checking for correctness? Rick