On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 04:20:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > If we are going to make this sort of change, we should do so in a way > that allows the slab code to actually do the optimizations that might > make this sort of thing worthwhile. After all, if the main goal was small > code size, the best approach is to drop kfree_bulk() and get on with life > in the usual fashion. > > I would prefer to believe that something like kfree_bulk() can help, > and if that is the case, we should give it a chance to do things like > group kfree_rcu() requests by destination slab and soforth, allowing > batching optimizations that might provide more significant increases > in performance. Furthermore, having this in slab opens the door to > slab taking emergency action when memory is low.
kfree_bulk does sort by destination slab; look at build_detached_freelist.
