From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AE3C43461 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:42:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C1B21897 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:42:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="X2eCgyA8" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C1C1B21897 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id DA96E6B0002; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 02:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D59C56B0037; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 02:42:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C70C56B0055; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 02:42:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0177.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.177]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DBF6B0002 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 02:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CD8180AD811 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:42:56 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77238951552.23.north90_1e17217270d2 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin23.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2D23760C for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:42:56 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: north90_1e17217270d2 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4658 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kernel.org (unknown [87.71.73.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2975621532; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:42:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1599547371; bh=96sp3WmwyYCFUlY6cW+eRDxY6WE1Mn3q/76AW2FR2FA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=X2eCgyA8r7jPkplTBABQK5Y00jq1fwvxQ4LayCz94jKomHbK5in0FChsHs77eB1r0 PhkB+tctp/lSR71to+m4BxSNKDIoEs8F3LKkU6R5GGeq5d7HMYEu08VJsvKvMMoZWb AyRX5nS6Sh+797ZUBTjsdcF8pxTeQc0JFItOBWLc= Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:42:45 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Mateusz Nosek Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mmu_notifier.c: micro-optimization substitute kzalloc with kmalloc Message-ID: <20200908064245.GE1976319@kernel.org> References: <20200906114321.16493-1-mateusznosek0@gmail.com> <20200906142645.GA1976319@kernel.org> <39c79454-9a97-2c06-3186-939c1f3a2b27@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <39c79454-9a97-2c06-3186-939c1f3a2b27@gmail.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3E2D23760C X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 06:06:39PM +0200, Mateusz Nosek wrote: > Hi, > > I performed simple benchmarks using custom kernel module with the code > fragment in question 'copy-pasted' in there in both versions. In case of 1k, > 10k and 100k iterations the average time for kzalloc version was 5.1 and for > kmalloc 3.9, for each iterations number. > The time was measured using 'ktime_get(void)' function and the results given > here are in ktime_t units. > The machine I use has 4 core Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3470 CPU @ 3.20GHz CPU. > > The performance increase happens, but as you wrote it is probably not really > noticeable. I don't think that saving a few cylces of memset() in a function that called only on the initialization path in very particular cases is worth risking uninitialized variables when somebody will add a new field to the 'struct mmu_notifier_subscriptions' and will forget to explicitly set it. > I have found 3 other places in kernel code with similar kzalloc related > issues, none of which seems to be 'hot' code. > I leave the decision if this patch and potential others I would send > regarding this issue, are worth applying to the community and maintainers. > > Best regards, > Mateusz Nosek > > On 9/6/2020 4:26 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 01:43:21PM +0200, mateusznosek0@gmail.com wrote: > > > From: Mateusz Nosek > > > > > > Most fields in struct pointed by 'subscriptions' are initialized explicitly > > > after the allocation. By changing kzalloc to kmalloc the call to memset > > > is avoided. As the only new code consists of 2 simple memory accesses, > > > the performance is increased. > > > > Is there a measurable performance increase? > > > > The __mmu_notifier_register() is not used that frequently to trade off > > robustness of kzalloc() for slight (if visible at all) performance gain. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mateusz Nosek > > > --- > > > mm/mmu_notifier.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c > > > index 4fc918163dd3..190e198dc5be 100644 > > > --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c @@ -625,7 +625,7 > > > @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription, > > > * know that mm->notifier_subscriptions can't change while we * > > > hold the write side of the mmap_lock. */ > > > - subscriptions = kzalloc( > > > + subscriptions = kmalloc( > > > sizeof(struct mmu_notifier_subscriptions), GFP_KERNEL); > > > if (!subscriptions) > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > @@ -636,6 +636,8 @@ int __mmu_notifier_register(struct mmu_notifier *subscription, > > > subscriptions->itree = RB_ROOT_CACHED; > > > init_waitqueue_head(&subscriptions->wq); > > > INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&subscriptions->deferred_list); > > > + subscriptions->active_invalidate_ranges = 0; > > > + subscriptions->has_itree = false; > > > } > > > ret = mm_take_all_locks(mm); > > > -- > > > 2.20.1 > > > > > > > > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.