From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] kmem_cache instances with static storage duration
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 16:12:55 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aWdB90WCfsArtwOw@hyeyoo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260110061600.GB3634291@ZenIV>
On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 06:16:00AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 07:33:41PM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 at 18:01, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > There's an alternative approach applicable at least to the caches
> > > that are never destroyed, which covers a lot of them. No matter what,
> > > runtime_const for pointers is not going to be faster than plain &,
> > > so if we had struct kmem_cache instances with static storage duration, we
> > > would be at least no worse off than we are with runtime_const variants.
> >
> > I like it. Much better than runtime_const for these things.
> >
> > That said, I don't love the commit messages. "turn xyzzy
> > static-duration" reads very oddly to me, and because I saw the emails
> > out of order originally it just made me go "whaa?"
> >
> > So can we please explain this some more obvious way. Maybe just "Make
> > xyz be statically allocated". Yes, I'm nitpicking, but I feel like
> > explaining core patches is worth the effort.
>
> Point, but TBH the tail of the series is basically a demo for conversions
> as well as "this is what I'd been testing, FSVO". In non-RFC form these
> would be folded into fewer commits, if nothing else...
>
> I'd really like to hear comments on the first two commits from SLAB
> maintainers - for example, if slab_flags_t bits are considered a scarce
> resource, the second commit would need to be modified. Still doable, but
I think it's okay to introduce a new cache flag as long as it's simpler.
IMHO it's not a scarce resource (yet).
> representation would be more convoluted...
>
> Another question is whether it's worth checking for accidental call
> of e.g. kmem_cache_setup() on an already initialized cache, statically
> or dynamically allocated.
No strong opinion from me.
> Again, up to maintainers - their subsystem,
> their preferences.
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-14 7:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-10 4:02 Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 01/15] static kmem_cache instances for core caches Al Viro
2026-01-10 5:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-01-10 6:23 ` Al Viro
2026-01-14 7:30 ` Harry Yoo
2026-01-14 7:38 ` Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 02/15] allow static-duration kmem_cache in modules Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 03/15] make mnt_cache static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 04/15] turn thread_cache static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 05/15] turn signal_cache static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 06/15] turn bh_cachep static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 07/15] turn dentry_cache static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 08/15] turn files_cachep static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 09/15] make filp and bfilp caches static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 10/15] turn sighand_cache static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 11/15] turn mm_cachep static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 12/15] turn task_struct_cachep static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 13/15] turn fs_cachep static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 14/15] turn inode_cachep static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 4:02 ` [RFC PATCH 15/15] turn ufs_inode_cache static-duration Al Viro
2026-01-10 5:33 ` [RFC PATCH 00/15] kmem_cache instances with static storage duration Linus Torvalds
2026-01-10 6:16 ` Al Viro
2026-01-14 7:12 ` Harry Yoo [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aWdB90WCfsArtwOw@hyeyoo \
--to=harry.yoo@oracle.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox