linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] binder: Use kmem_cache for binder

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]

Message-ID: <20190830121251.rvdhohyykekhh25r@wittgenstein>
Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:12:52 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Peikan Tsai <peikantsai@...il.com>, arve@...roid.com,
        tkjos@...roid.com, maco@...roid.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binder: Use kmem_cache for binder_thread

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 08:38:51AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 05:27:22PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:53:59AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 08:42:29AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:49:53PM +0800, Peikan Tsai wrote:
> > > [snip] 
> > > > > The allocated size for each binder_thread is 512 bytes by kzalloc.
> > > > > Because the size of binder_thread is fixed and it's only 304 bytes.
> > > > > It will save 208 bytes per binder_thread when use create a kmem_cache
> > > > > for the binder_thread.
> > > > 
> > > > Are you _sure_ it really will save that much memory?  You want to do
> > > > allocations based on a nice alignment for lots of good reasons,
> > > > especially for something that needs quick accesses.
> > > 
> > > Alignment can be done for slab allocations, kmem_cache_create() takes an
> > > align argument. I am not sure what the default alignment of objects is
> > > though (probably no default alignment). What is an optimal alignment in your
> > > view?
> > 
> > Probably SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN would make most sense.
> 
> This isn't memory accessing hardware, so I don't think it would, right?

I was more thinking of cacheline bouncing under contention. But maybe
that's not worth it in this case...