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, 29 Aug 2019 08:42:29 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Peikan Tsai <peikantsai@gmail.com>
Cc:     arve@android.com, tkjos@android.com, maco@android.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, christian@brauner.io,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binder: Use kmem_cache for binder_thread
Message-ID: <20190829064229.GA30423@kroah.com>
References: <20190829054953.GA18328@mark-All-Series>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190829054953.GA18328@mark-All-Series>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:49:53PM +0800, Peikan Tsai wrote:
> Hi,

No need for that in a changelog text :)

> The allocated size for each binder_thread is 512 bytes by kzalloc.
> Because the size of binder_thread is fixed and it's only 304 bytes.
> It will save 208 bytes per binder_thread when use create a kmem_cache
> for the binder_thread.

Are you _sure_ it really will save that much memory?  You want to do
allocations based on a nice alignment for lots of good reasons,
especially for something that needs quick accesses.

Did you test your change on a system that relies on binder and find any
speed improvement or decrease, and any actual memory savings?

If so, can you post your results?

thanks,

greg k-h