[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZFMndF/nnJyYSMuc@moria.home.lan>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 23:33:08 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, mgorman@...e.de,
dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
corbet@....net, void@...ifault.com, peterz@...radead.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
x86@...nel.org, peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, mcgrof@...nel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org,
nathan@...nel.org, dennis@...nel.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
rppt@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
yosryahmed@...gle.com, yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
hughd@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
ebiggers@...gle.com, ytcoode@...il.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com,
penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
glider@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
shakeelb@...gle.com, songmuchun@...edance.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Memory allocation profiling
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 04:25:30PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I see. I'm a bit skeptical about the performance angle given that the hot
> path can be probably made really cheap even with lookups. In most cases,
> it's just gonna be an extra pointer deref and a few more arithmetics. That
> can show up in microbenchmarks but it's not gonna be much. The benefit of
> going that route would be the tracking thing being mostly self contained.
The only way to do it with a single additional pointer deref would be
with a completely statically sized hash table without chaining - it'd
have to be open addressing.
More realistically you're looking at ~3 dependent loads.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists