Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH 2/2] net/9p: add a per-client fcall
 kmem_cache
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
References: <20180730093101.GA7894@nautica>
 <1532943263-24378-1-git-send-email-asmadeus@codewreck.org>
 <1532943263-24378-2-git-send-email-asmadeus@codewreck.org>
 <5B5FB8F0.6020908@huawei.com> <20180731013556.GA1530@nautica>
CC:     <v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From:   piaojun <piaojun@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <5B5FBF4C.3030605@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:45:48 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180731013556.GA1530@nautica>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2018/7/31 9:35, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> piaojun wrote on Tue, Jul 31, 2018:
>> Could you help paste some test result before-and-after the patch applied?
> 
> The only performance tests I did were sent to the list a couple of mails
> earlier, you can find it here:
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180730093101.GA7894@nautica
> 
> In particular, the results for benchmark on small writes just before and
> after this patch, without KASAN (these are the same numbers as in the
> link, hardware/setup is described there):
>  - no alloc (4.18-rc7 request cache): 65.4k req/s
>  - non-power of two alloc, no patch: 61.6k req/s
>  - power of two alloc, no patch: 62.2k req/s
>  - non-power of two alloc, with patch: 64.7k req/s
>  - power of two alloc, with patch: 65.1k req/s
> 
> I'm rather happy with the result, I didn't expect using a dedicated
> cache would bring this much back but it's certainly worth it.
> 
It looks like an obvious promotion.

>>> @@ -1011,6 +1034,7 @@ void p9_client_destroy(struct p9_client *clnt)
>>>  
>>>  	p9_tag_cleanup(clnt);
>>>  
>>> +	kmem_cache_destroy(clnt->fcall_cache);
>>
>> We could set NULL for fcall_cache in case of use-after-free.
>>
>>>  	kfree(clnt);
> 
> Hmm, I understand where this comes from, but I'm not sure I agree.
> If someone tries to access the client while/after it is freed things are
> going to break anyway, I'd rather let things break as obviously as
> possible than try to cover it up.
> 
Setting NULL is not a big matter, and I will hear others' opinion.