linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] dcache: account external names as indirectly reclaimable memory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180417064414.GX17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 17 Apr 2018 08:44:14 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
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

[the head of the thread is http://lkml.kernel.org/r/08524819-14ef-81d0-fa90-d7af13c6b9d5@suse.cz]

On Mon 16-04-18 21:57:50, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 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

OK, noted.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs