linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] slab: move kmem_cache

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:10:24 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] slab: move kmem_cache_free to common code

On 10/22/2012 06:45 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 
>> + * kmem_cache_free - Deallocate an object
>> + * @cachep: The cache the allocation was from.
>> + * @objp: The previously allocated object.
>> + *
>> + * Free an object which was previously allocated from this
>> + * cache.
>> + */
>> +void kmem_cache_free(struct kmem_cache *s, void *x)
>> +{
>> +	__kmem_cache_free(s, x);
>> +	trace_kmem_cache_free(_RET_IP_, x);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free);
>> +
> 
> This results in an additional indirection if tracing is off. Wonder if
> there is a performance impact?
> 
if tracing is on, you mean?

Tracing already incurs overhead, not sure how much a function call would
add to the tracing overhead.

I would not be concerned with this, but I can measure, if you have any
specific workload in mind.

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