From: Peikan Tsai <peikantsai@gmail.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
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
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:59:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190829185901.GA4680@mark-All-Series> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190829152721.ttsyfwaeygmwmcu7@wittgenstein>
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.
>
Agree. Thanks for yours comments and suggestions.
I'll put SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN it in patch v2.
> >
> > > 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
I tested this change on an Android device(arm) with AOSP kernel 4.19 and
observed
memory usage of binder_thread. But I didn't do binder benchmark yet.
On my platform the memory usage of binder_thread reduce about 90 KB as
the
following result.
nr obj obj size total
before: 624 512 319488 bytes
after: 728 312 227136 bytes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-29 18:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-29 5:49 [PATCH] binder: Use kmem_cache for binder_thread Peikan Tsai
2019-08-29 6:42 ` Greg KH
2019-08-29 13:53 ` Joel Fernandes
2019-08-29 15:27 ` Christian Brauner
2019-08-29 18:59 ` Peikan Tsai [this message]
2019-08-29 19:30 ` joel
2019-08-30 6:39 ` Greg KH
2019-09-02 14:12 ` Peikan Tsai
2019-08-30 6:38 ` Greg KH
2019-08-30 12:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-08-29 13:43 ` Joel Fernandes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190829185901.GA4680@mark-All-Series \
--to=peikantsai@gmail.com \
--cc=arve@android.com \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maco@android.com \
--cc=tkjos@android.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.