Re: [PATCH 3/4] gcov: add gcov profiling infrastructure

[Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Amerigo Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 05:26:22PM +0200, Peter Oberparleiter wrote:
>> Peter Oberparleiter wrote:
>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:44:02 +0200
>>>> Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>> +	/* Duplicate gcov_info. */
>>>>> +	active = num_counter_active(info);
>>>>> +	dup = kzalloc(sizeof(struct gcov_info) +
>>>>> +		      sizeof(struct gcov_ctr_info) * active, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> How large can this allocation be?
>>> Hm, good question. Having a look at my test system, I see coverage data 
>>> files of up to 60kb size. With counters making up the largest part of 
>>> those, I'd guess the allocation size can be around ~55kb. I assume that 
>>> makes it a candidate for vmalloc?
>> A further run with debug output showed that the maximum size is
>> actually around 4k, so in my opinion, there is no need to switch
>> to vmalloc.
> 
> Unless you want virtually continious memory, you don't need to
> bother vmalloc().
> 
> kmalloc() and get_free_pages() are all fine for this.

kmalloc() requires contiguous pages to serve an allocation request 
larger than a single page. The longer a kernel runs, the more fragmented 
the pool of free pages gets and the probability to find enough 
contiguous free pages is significantly reduced.

In this case (having had a 3rd look), I found allocations of up to 
~50kb, so to be sure, I'll switch that particular allocation to vmalloc().