linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


      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