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;
Date:   Thu, 8 Aug 2019 15:37:00 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@oracle.com>,
        max.byungchul.park@gmail.com, kernel-team@android.com,
        kernel-team@lge.com, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/2] rcu/tree: Add basic support for kfree_rcu
 batching
Message-ID: <20190808223700.GZ28441@linux.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20190806212041.118146-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190806235631.GU28441@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190807094504.GB169551@google.com>
 <20190808102610.GA7227@X58A-UD3R>
 <20190808181112.GQ28441@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190808201333.GE261256@google.com>
 <20190808205129.GU28441@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190808223415.GG261256@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190808223415.GG261256@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 06:34:15PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:51:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Also, I am thinking that whenever we do per-slab optimization, then the
> > > kmem_cache_free_bulk() can be optimized further. If all pointers are on the
> > > same slab, then we can just do virt_to_cache on the first pointer and avoid
> > > repeated virt_to_cache() calls. That might also give a benefit -- but I could
> > > be missing something.
> > 
> > A sort might be required to make that work nicely, which would add some
> > overhead.  Probably not that much, though, the increased locality would
> > have a fighting chance of overcoming the sort's overhead.
> > 
> > > Right now kmem_cache_free_bulk() just looks like a kmem_cache_free() in a
> > > loop except the small benefit of not disabling/enabling IRQs across each
> > > __cache_free, and the reduced cache miss benefit of using the array.
> > 
> > C'mon!  Show some respect for the awesome power of temporal locality!!!  ;-)
> 
> Good point. I will try to respect it more in the future ;-) After all, it is
> quite a useful concept.

;-) ;-) ;-)

It still has to prove itself in real benchmarks, of course!

							Thanx, Paul