[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230525120524.GH30909@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 14:05:25 +0200
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slab: add new flag SLAB_NO_MERGE to avoid merging per
slab
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 03:53:11PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 5/24/23 14:56, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:17:48PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > work for your use case? (there are some boot-time slub_debug options described in
> > Documentation/mm/slub.rst)
>
> Yeah, it supports globbing so it would be e.g. slub_debug=N,btrfs*
> That would deal with the "too coarse" aspect slab_nomerge. As for "need to
> be enabled on all testing hosts", is it more convenient to deploy a debug
> kernel build on them? Might be because you do that for other reasons
> already? Just want to clarify.
Yeah, agreed.
> BTW this was proposed as RFC few months ago but not pursued:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/167396280045.539803.7540459812377220500.stgit@firesoul/
>
> I have no big objections, just wouldn't like to see its usage proliferate
> unconditionally into non-debug builds.
It would be fine for me to make it conditionally available, e.g.
depending on SLUB_DEBUG.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists