From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754213Ab1AJSr3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:47:29 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:34254 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754008Ab1AJSr1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:47:27 -0500 Message-ID: <4D2B543A.3070609@austin.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:47:22 -0600 From: Nathan Fontenot User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Robin Holt Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] De-couple sysfs memory directories from memory sections References: <4D2B4B38.80102@austin.ibm.com> <20110110184416.GA18974@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20110110184416.GA18974@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/10/2011 12:44 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:08:56PM -0600, Nathan Fontenot wrote: >> This is a re-send of the remaining patches that did not make it >> into the last kernel release for de-coupling sysfs memory >> directories from memory sections. The first three patches of the >> previous set went in, and this is the remaining patches that >> need to be applied. > > Well, it's a bit late right now, as we are merging stuff that is already > in our trees, and we are busy with that, so this is likely to be ignored > until after .38-rc1 is out. > > So, care to resend this after .38-rc1 is out so people can pay attention > to it? I was afraid of this. I didn't get a chance to get it out sooner but thought I would send it out anyway. > > >> The root of this issue is in sysfs directory creation. Every time >> a directory is created a string compare is done against all sibling >> directories to ensure we do not create duplicates. The list of >> directory nodes in sysfs is kept as an unsorted list which results >> in this being an exponentially longer operation as the number of >> directories are created. > > Are you sure this is still an issue? I thought we solved this last > kernel or so with a simple patch? I'll go back and look at this again. thanks, -Nathan