Re: [PATCH 1/7] mm: introduce simple_malloc()/simple_free()

[Eric Dumazet]

Arjan van de Ven a écrit :
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:35:03 +0800
> Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > vmalloc() is not good for performance and increasing fragment.
> > but vmalloc() is need for some subsystems' alternative malloc,
> > like cgroup's tasks file and other subsystems(about 20 subsystems).
>
> actually what you are pointing out is that these areas need improvement
> to not need such huge blocks of memory... but only a series of smaller
> blocks instead.


Just zap vmalloc()/vfree() then ?

More seriously, vmalloc()/vfree() were designed partly to make people life easier,
not to be *the* premium interface to manage kernel memory

Some parts of the kernel cannot afford the cost of vmalloc()/vfree(), so people
must think and design complex algos.

I personnaly like this cleanup too. For example bnx2 driver actually uses vmalloc() while
a kmalloc() should be OK for bnx2_alloc_rx_mem()

# grep bnx2 /proc/vmallocinfo
0xf8260000-0xf8274000   81920 bnx2_init_board+0x104/0xae0 phys=f6000000 ioremap
0xf8280000-0xf8294000   81920 bnx2_init_board+0x104/0xae0 phys=fa000000 ioremap
0xf82c1000-0xf82c3000    8192 bnx2_alloc_rx_mem+0x33/0x310 pages=1 vmalloc
0xf82d9000-0xf82db000    8192 bnx2_alloc_rx_mem+0x33/0x310 pages=1 vmalloc

I have two comments :

1) Names should be not "simple" : That is misleading. "convenient" maybe, or "slow"...

2) Since vmalloc()/vfree() is potentially a very expensive operation, we should make
  slow_malloc()/slow_free() or whatever name is chosen, uninlined. No need to try to save
  3 or 4 cpu cycles. This will save icache at least.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/