On 5/2/24 09:59, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 30-04-24 17:42:18, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to propose a session about the next steps for SLUB. This is >> different from the BOF about sheaves that Matthew suggested, which would be >> not suitable for the whole group due to being not fleshed out enough yet. >> But the session could be scheduled after the BOF so if we do brainstorm >> something promising there, the result could be discussed as part of the full >> session. >> >> Aside from that my preliminary plan is to discuss: >> >> - what was made possible by reducing the slab allocators implementations to >> a single one, and what else could be done now with a single implementation >> >> - the work-in-progress work (for now in the context of maple tree) on SLUB >> per-cpu array caches and preallocation >> >> - what functionality would SLUB need to gain so the extra caching done by >> bpf allocator on top wouldn't be necessary? (kernel/bpf/memalloc.c) >> >> - similar wrt lib/objpool.c (did you even noticed it was added? :) >> >> - maybe the mempool functionality could be better integrated as well? >> >> - are there more cases where people have invented layers outside mm and that >> could be integrated with some effort? IIRC io_uring also has some caching on >> top currently... >> >> - better/more efficient memcg integration? >> >> - any other features people would like SLUB to have? > > Thanks a lot Vlastimi. This is quite a list. Do you think this is a fit > into a single time slot or would that benefit from splitting into 2 > slots? I think single slot is fine, could schedule another one later if we don't fit?
