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.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>