[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151110183808.GB13740@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:38:08 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] slab: add SLAB_ACCOUNT flag
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:34:05PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Currently, if we want to account all objects of a particular kmem cache,
> we have to pass __GFP_ACCOUNT to each kmem_cache_alloc call, which is
> inconvenient. This patch introduces SLAB_ACCOUNT flag which if passed to
> kmem_cache_create will force accounting for every allocation from this
> cache even if __GFP_ACCOUNT is not passed.
>
> This patch does not make any of the existing caches use this flag - it
> will be done later in the series.
>
> Note, a cache with SLAB_ACCOUNT cannot be merged with a cache w/o
> SLAB_ACCOUNT, i.e. using this flag will probably reduce the number of
> merged slabs even if kmem accounting is not used (only compiled in).
Am I correct in thinking that we should eventually be able to removed
__GFP_ACCOUNT and that only caches explicitly marked with SLAB_ACCOUNT
would need to be handled by kmemcg?
Thanks a lot for doing this!
--
tejun
--
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