On Tue 17-07-18 10:32:32, Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:50 AM Michal Hocko
> Is there any reason that this work has to target the next merge
> The changelog is not really specific about that.
Same reason as any other change in this space, hardware availability
continues to increase. These patches are a direct response to end user
reports of unacceptable init latency with current kernels.
Do you have any reference please?
> There no numbers or
> anything that would make this sound as a high priority stuff.
>From the end of the cover letter:
"With this change an 8 socket system was observed to initialize pmem
namespaces in ~4 seconds whereas it was previously taking ~4 minutes."
Well, yeah, it sounds like a nice to have thing to me. 4 minutes doesn't
sounds excesive for a single init time operation. Machines are booting
tens of minutes these days...
My plan if this is merged would be to come back and refactor it with
the deferred_init_memmap() implementation, my plan if this is not
merged would be to come back and refactor it with the
Well, my experience tells me that "refactor later" is rarely done.
Especially when it is not critical thing to do. There are so many other
things to go in the way to put that into back burner... So unless this
is abslutely critical to have fixed in the upcoming merge window then I
would much rather see a (reasonably) good solution from the begining.