[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501271100520.25124@gentwo.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:02:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/3] slub: don't fail kmem_cache_shrink if slab
placement optimization fails
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> May be, we could remove this allocation at all then? I mean, always
> distribute slabs among constant number of buckets, say 32, like this:
The point of the sorting is to have the slab pages that only have a few
objects available at the beginning of the list. Allocations can then
easily reduce the size of hte partial page list.
What you could do is simply put all slab pages with more than 32 objects
available at the end of the list.
--
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