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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).