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:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:38:51 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Peikan Tsai <peikantsai@gmail.com>, arve@android.com,
        tkjos@android.com, maco@android.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binder: Use kmem_cache for binder_thread
Message-ID: <20190830063851.GG15257@kroah.com>
References: <20190829054953.GA18328@mark-All-Series>
 <20190829064229.GA30423@kroah.com>
 <20190829135359.GB63638@google.com>
 <20190829152721.ttsyfwaeygmwmcu7@wittgenstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190829152721.ttsyfwaeygmwmcu7@wittgenstein>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:27:22PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:53:59AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 08:42:29AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:49:53PM +0800, Peikan Tsai wrote:
> > [snip] 
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > Alignment can be done for slab allocations, kmem_cache_create() takes an
> > align argument. I am not sure what the default alignment of objects is
> > though (probably no default alignment). What is an optimal alignment in your
> > view?
> 
> Probably SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN would make most sense.

This isn't memory accessing hardware, so I don't think it would, right?

Anyway, some actual performance tests need to be run to see if any of
this make any difference at all please...

thanks,

greg k-h


> 
> > 
> > > 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?
> > 
> > That's certainly worth it and I thought of asking for the same, but spoke too
> > soon!
> 
> Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what difference this actually makes. 
> 
> Christian