[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a6413098-b37c-a6b8-45cb-ce273ff16c29@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:57:50 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
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, lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dcache: account external names as indirectly
reclaimable memory
On 04/16/2018 02:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-04-18 14:06:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>
>> For example the percpu (and other) array caches...
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I'm afraid that's the case, yes.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yep. It could be also CONFIG_urable so smaller systems don't need to
>> deal with the memory overhead of this.
>>
>> So do we put it on LSF/MM agenda?
>
> If you volunteer to lead the discussion, then I do not have any
> objections.
Sure, let's add the topic of SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE [1] as well.
Something like "Supporting reclaimable kmalloc caches and large
non-buddy-sized objects in slab allocators" ?
[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=152156671614796&w=2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists