[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180524114350.GA10323@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 04:43:50 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] kmalloc-reclaimable caches
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:00:06PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Now for the issues a.k.a. why RFC:
>
> - I haven't find any other obvious users for reclaimable kmalloc (yet)
Is that a problem? This sounds like it's enough to solve Facebook's
problem.
> - the name of caches kmalloc-reclaimable-X is rather long
Yes; Christoph and I were talking about restricting slab names to 16 bytes
just to make /proc/slabinfo easier to read. How about
kmalloc-rec-128k
1234567890123456
Just makes it ;-)
Of course, somebody needs to do the work to use k/M instead of 4194304.
We also need to bikeshed about when to switch; should it be:
kmalloc-rec-512
kmalloc-rec-1024
kmalloc-rec-2048
kmalloc-rec-4096
kmalloc-rec-8192
kmalloc-rec-16k
or should it be
kmalloc-rec-512
kmalloc-rec-1k
kmalloc-rec-2k
kmalloc-rec-4k
kmalloc-rec-8k
kmalloc-rec-16k
I slightly favour the latter as it'll be easier to implement. Something like
static const char suffixes[3] = ' kM';
int idx = 0;
while (size > 1024) {
size /= 1024;
idx++;
}
sprintf("%d%c", size, suffices[idx]);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists