[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00000139fe41d6c9-f647ef17-8c06-4332-91b8-13c18a0b19ea-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:28:11 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
devel@...nvz.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/16] memcg: infrastructure to match an allocation
to the right cache
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >> 1) Do like the events mechanism and allocate this in a separate
> >> structure. Add a pointer chase in the access, and I don't think it helps
> >> much because it gets allocated anyway. But we could at least
> >> defer it to the time when we limit the cache.
> >
> > Start at some reasonable size and then double it as usage grows? How
> > many kmem_caches do we typically end up using?
> >
>
> So my Fedora box here, recently booted on a Fedora kernel, will have 111
> caches. How would 150 sound to you?
Some drivers/subsystems can dynamically create slabs as needed for new
devices or instances of metadata. You cannot use a fixed size
array and cannot establish an upper boundary for the number of slabs on
the system.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists