On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:21:30AM -0600, Christopher Lameter wrote: > > struct kmem_cache_attr { > > const char name[32]; > > Want to avoid the string reference mess that occurred in the past? > Is that really necessary? But it would limit the size of the name. I think that's a good thing! /proc/slabinfo really starts to get grotty above 16 bytes. I'd like to chop off "_cache" from the name of every single slab! If ext4_allocation_context has to become ext4_alloc_ctx, I don't think we're going to lose any valuable information. My real intent was to reduce the number of allocations; if we can make it not necessary to kstrdup the name, I think that'd be appreciated by our CONFIG_TINY friends. > > (my rationale is that everything in attr should be const, but size, align > > and flags all get modified by the slab code). > > Thought about putting all the parameters into the kmem_cache_attr struct. > > So > > struct kmem_cache_attr { > char *name; > size_t size; > size_t align; > slab_flags_t flags; > unsigned int useroffset; > unsinged int usersize; > void (*ctor)(void *); > kmem_isolate_func *isolate; > kmem_migrate_func *migrate; > ... > } In these slightly-more-security-conscious days, it's considered poor practice to have function pointers in writable memory. That was why I wanted to make the kmem_cache_attr const. Also, there's no need for 'size' and 'align' to be size_t. Slab should never support allocations above 4GB in size. I'm not even keen on seeing allocations above 64kB, but I see my laptop has six 512kB allocations (!), three 256kB allocations and seven 128kB allocations, so I must reluctantly concede that using an unsigned int is necessary. If I were really into bitshaving, I might force all allocations to be a multiple of 32-bytes in size, and then we could use 16 bits to represent an allocation between 32 and 2MB, but I think that tips us beyond the complexity boundary.