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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
