From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FE624B04B1 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2026 12:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789561383; cv=none; b=PQ7V6QwLln4MgyGq9BMvNnTxQvK/ck7A/pGumTIWON1grVye+znYhJ+xcNsu33+0pjrCJKDX1ku3FbjhZe5pSMmL6pKaNuu9+qEm8SStKtcQPfCRfOsYZr+MW7NQoN3IHSv6UbcMGWXmQ+OJ0PFhN2LgWyq5XiJ2sqekrtfm6CQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789561383; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wFA3F/oocLEtTLSepPFcPAzcWrLzxaC2SOieQ9WY460=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=h+rAtDjqw2URdbdS0i8sTI9pfCnaqzqAWpkM8LHSFoQir9JmUbpKVeyFP+VX1PG7VmBKGnG/+DKa6tMhYcRx56vAcCQL2nucoCfSAibTYRvBMz0+UAVzKfSdZKnm8QoOQu7csm1euFq5TGqipFA/rpS1l1P5o4Tpn4OjMH/hAY0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=JqIUFVHC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="JqIUFVHC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC8051F000FF; Wed, 16 Sep 2026 12:23:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789561382; bh=wFA3F/oocLEtTLSepPFcPAzcWrLzxaC2SOieQ9WY460=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=JqIUFVHC1mvdEw2/FXZ4BEdHISVTRuAJP6crnwaifIfJoeXz2xPWFuL1BIe8AKa5r LKj6+5B/sTOnNZA8068hj/Deus74wtYFZa9LEG4IV9ld4DX6E9RAs79euCauHEmwaC +8gJm8Ag6sNYbrgWztZ2d+xxcU4Vi+Q9IzoRAnJpILzqBdzPcjtNEnScY6zq2K9UpS d2BDBsFc8TBHar3nhn7vCOKToJnpgln+/QN2Z5k0j4AC2j/eJKZS+lTPCIffVLfeqn ZekKzGY0SV5dRyKzJSWRedv6SnLBhzzM+mjCQzmgh25sHvXhUMeJ8DORLVHkN+reqi e8BmFCTUzn3yw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/13] s390/qdio_setup: Use kmalloc() for the storage list Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: =?utf-8?b?TWlrZSBSYXBvcG9ydCAoTWljcm9zb2Z0KQ==?= Cc: "Heiko Carstens" , "Christian Borntraeger" , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, "Alexander Gordeev" , "Vasily Gorbik" In-Reply-To: <20260916-s390-cio-ready-v3-11-39e4894637d6@kernel.org> References: <20260916-s390-cio-ready-v3-0-39e4894637d6@kernel.org> <20260916-s390-cio-ready-v3-11-39e4894637d6@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2026 12:23:01 +0000 Message-Id: <20260916122301.CC8051F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > __qdio_allocate_qs() allocates the storage list information block of a > queue. >=20 > This memory can be allocated with kmalloc() as there's nothing special > about it to go directly to the page allocator. >=20 > kmalloc() provides a better API that does not require ugly casts and > kfree() does not need to know the size of the freed object. >=20 > Performance difference between kmalloc() and __get_free_pages() is not > measurable as both allocators take an object/page from a per-CPU list for > fast path allocations. >=20 > For the slow path the performance is anyway determined by the amount of > reclaim involved rather than by what allocator is used. >=20 > Replace use of __get_free_page() with kmalloc() and free_page() with > kfree(). >=20 > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/635405e4-9423-4a25-a6e7-e03c8ea0bcbe@re= dhat.com > Assisted-by: copilot:claude-opus > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260916-s390-cio-r= eady-v3-0-39e4894637d6@kernel.org?part=3D11