[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180416114144.GK17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:41:44 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dcache: account external names as indirectly
reclaimable memory
On Fri 13-04-18 10:37:16, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 04:28:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 13-04-18 16:20:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > We would need kmalloc-reclaimable-X variants. It could be worth it,
> > > especially if we find more similar usages. I suspect they would be more
> > > useful than the existing dma-kmalloc-X :)
> >
> > I am still not sure why __GFP_RECLAIMABLE cannot be made work as
> > expected and account slab pages as SLAB_RECLAIMABLE
>
> Can you outline how this would work without separate caches?
I thought that the cache would only maintain two sets of slab pages
depending on the allocation reuquests. I am pretty sure there will be
other details to iron out and maybe it will turn out that such a large
portion of the chache would need to duplicate the state that a
completely new cache would be more reasonable. Is this worth exploring
at least? I mean something like this should help with the fragmentation
already AFAIU. Accounting would be just free on top.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists