[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0100016679e54c6e-67ca8716-c95e-427f-aec9-a5bee5e84792-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 22:42:42 +0000
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, slab: avoid high-order slab pages when it does not
reduce waste
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, David Rientjes wrote:
> @@ -1803,6 +1804,20 @@ static size_t calculate_slab_order(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
> */
> if (left_over * 8 <= (PAGE_SIZE << gfporder))
> break;
> +
> + /*
> + * If a higher gfporder would not reduce internal fragmentation,
> + * no need to continue. The preference is to keep gfporder as
> + * small as possible so slab allocations can be served from
> + * MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE pcp lists to avoid stranding.
> + */
I think either go for order 0 (because then you can use the pcp lists) or
go as high as possible (then you can allocator larger memory areas with a
single pass through the page allocator).
But then I am not sure that the whole approach will do any good.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists