Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH 2/2] net/9p: add a per-client fcall kmem_cache

[piaojun]

On 2018/7/31 9:35, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> piaojun wrote on Tue, Jul 31, 2018:
>> Could you help paste some test result before-and-after the patch applied?
> 
> The only performance tests I did were sent to the list a couple of mails
> earlier, you can find it here:
> 20180730093101.GA7894@nautica">http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180730093101.GA7894@nautica
> 
> In particular, the results for benchmark on small writes just before and
> after this patch, without KASAN (these are the same numbers as in the
> link, hardware/setup is described there):
>  - no alloc (4.18-rc7 request cache): 65.4k req/s
>  - non-power of two alloc, no patch: 61.6k req/s
>  - power of two alloc, no patch: 62.2k req/s
>  - non-power of two alloc, with patch: 64.7k req/s
>  - power of two alloc, with patch: 65.1k req/s
> 
> I'm rather happy with the result, I didn't expect using a dedicated
> cache would bring this much back but it's certainly worth it.
> 
It looks like an obvious promotion.

>>> @@ -1011,6 +1034,7 @@ void p9_client_destroy(struct p9_client *clnt)
>>>  
>>>  	p9_tag_cleanup(clnt);
>>>  
>>> +	kmem_cache_destroy(clnt->fcall_cache);
>>
>> We could set NULL for fcall_cache in case of use-after-free.
>>
>>>  	kfree(clnt);
> 
> Hmm, I understand where this comes from, but I'm not sure I agree.
> If someone tries to access the client while/after it is freed things are
> going to break anyway, I'd rather let things break as obviously as
> possible than try to cover it up.
> 
Setting NULL is not a big matter, and I will hear others' opinion.