On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 06:34:15PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:51:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Also, I am thinking that whenever we do per-slab optimization, then the
> > > kmem_cache_free_bulk() can be optimized further. If all pointers are on
> > > the
> > > same slab, then we can just do virt_to_cache on the first pointer and
> > > avoid
> > > repeated virt_to_cache() calls. That might also give a benefit -- but I
> > > could
> > > be missing something.
> >
> > A sort might be required to make that work nicely, which would add some
> > overhead. Probably not that much, though, the increased locality would
> > have a fighting chance of overcoming the sort's overhead.
> >
> > > Right now kmem_cache_free_bulk() just looks like a kmem_cache_free() in a
> > > loop except the small benefit of not disabling/enabling IRQs across each
> > > __cache_free, and the reduced cache miss benefit of using the array.
> >
> > C'mon! Show some respect for the awesome power of temporal locality!!! ;-)
>
> Good point. I will try to respect it more in the future ;-) After all, it is
> quite a useful concept.
;-) ;-) ;-)
It still has to prove itself in real benchmarks, of course!
Thanx, Paul
