[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804170939420.17557@nuc-kabylake>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:40:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: slab: introduce the flag SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> dm-bufio deals gracefully with allocation failure, because it preallocates
> some buffers with vmalloc, but other subsystems may not deal with it and
> they cound return ENOMEM randomly or misbehave in other ways. So, the
> "SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE" flag is also saying that the allocation may fail and
> the caller is prepared to deal with it.
>
> The slub subsystem does actual fallback to low-order when the allocation
> fails (it allows different order for each slab in the same cache), but
> slab doesn't fallback and you get NULL if higher-order allocation fails.
> So, SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE is needed for slab because it will just randomly
> fail with higher order.
Fix Slab instead of adding a flag that is only useful for one allocator?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists