Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] guarantee natural alignment for kmalloc()?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 06:28:19AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 02:52:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > In the session I hope to resolve the question whether this is indeed the
> > right thing to do for all kmalloc() users, without an explicit alignment
> > requests, and if it's worth the potentially worse
> > performance/fragmentation it would impose on a hypothetical new slab
> > implementation for which it wouldn't be optimal to split power-of-two
> > sized pages into power-of-two-sized objects (or whether there are any
> > other downsides).
> 
> I think this is exactly the kind of discussion that LSFMM is for!  It's
> really a whole-system question; is Linux better-off having the flexibility
> for allocators to return non-power-of-two aligned memory, or allowing
> consumers of the kmalloc API to assume that "sufficiently large" memory
> is naturally aligned.

This has been scheduled for only the MM track.  I think at least the
filesystem people should be involved in this discussion since it's for
their benefit.

Do we have an lsf-discuss mailing list this year?  Might be good to
coordinate arrivals / departures for taxi sharing purposes.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux