[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fea26519-2b5f-b404-872d-47afabcd3393@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 17:52:25 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@...eaurora.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] kmalloc-reclaimable caches
On 05/24/2018 02:13 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:00:06PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> - I haven't find any other obvious users for reclaimable kmalloc (yet)
>
> As I remember, ION memory allocator was discussed related to this theme:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/24/1288
+CC Laura
Yeah ION added the NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES handling, which is
adjusted to page granularity in patch 4. I'm not sure if it should use
kmalloc as it seems to be allocating order-X pages, where kmalloc/slab
just means extra overhead. But maybe if it doesn't allocate/free too
frequently, it could work?
>> I did a superset as IIRC somebody suggested that in the older threads or at LSF.
>
> This looks nice to me!
>
> Thanks!
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists