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 14:12:52 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
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: <20190830121251.rvdhohyykekhh25r@wittgenstein>
References: <20190829054953.GA18328@mark-All-Series>
 <20190829064229.GA30423@kroah.com>
 <20190829135359.GB63638@google.com>
 <20190829152721.ttsyfwaeygmwmcu7@wittgenstein>
 <20190830063851.GG15257@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190830063851.GG15257@kroah.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 08:38:51AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?

I was more thinking of cacheline bouncing under contention. But maybe
that's not worth it in this case...