Re: [PATCH 2/2] slab: move kmem_cache_free to common code

[JoonSoo Kim]

2012/10/23 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 10/23/2012 12:07 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 04:48 AM, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
>>> Hello, Glauber.
>>>
>>> 2012/10/23 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> On 10/22/2012 06:45 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> + * kmem_cache_free - Deallocate an object
>>>>>> + * @cachep: The cache the allocation was from.
>>>>>> + * @objp: The previously allocated object.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Free an object which was previously allocated from this
>>>>>> + * cache.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    __kmem_cache_free(s, x);
>>>>>> +    trace_kmem_cache_free(_RET_IP_, x);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> This results in an additional indirection if tracing is off. Wonder if
>>>>> there is a performance impact?
>>>>>
>>>> if tracing is on, you mean?
>>>>
>>>> Tracing already incurs overhead, not sure how much a function call would
>>>> add to the tracing overhead.
>>>>
>>>> I would not be concerned with this, but I can measure, if you have any
>>>> specific workload in mind.
>>>
>>> With this patch, kmem_cache_free() invokes __kmem_cache_free(),
>>> that is, it add one more "call instruction" than before.
>>>
>>> I think that Christoph's comment means above fact.
>>
>> Ah, this. Ok, I got fooled by his mention to tracing.
>>
>> I do agree, but since freeing is ultimately dependent on the allocator
>> layout, I don't see a clean way of doing this without dropping tears of
>> sorrow around. The calls in slub/slab/slob would have to be somehow
>> inlined. Hum... maybe it is possible to do it from
>> include/linux/sl*b_def.h...
>>
>> Let me give it a try and see what I can come up with.
>>
>
> Ok.
>
> I am attaching a PoC for this for your appreciation. This gets quite
> ugly, but it's the way I found without including sl{a,u,o}b.c directly -
> which would be even worse.

Hmm...
This is important issue for sl[aou]b common allocators.
Because there are similar functions like as kmem_cache_alloc, ksize, kfree, ...
So it is good time to resolve this issue.

As far as I know, now, we have 3 solutions.

1. include/linux/slab.h
__always_inline kmem_cache_free()
{
__kmem_cache_free();
blablabla...
}

2. define macro like as Glauber's solution
3. include sl[aou]b.c directly.

Is there other good solution?
Among them, I prefer "solution 3", because future developing cost may
be minimum among them.

"Solution 2" may be error-prone for future developing.
"Solution 1" may make compile-time longer and larger code.

Is my understanding right?
Is "Solution 3" really ugly?

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/