On Thu 25-04-19 04:33:59, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > 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. Agreed. I have marked it as a MM/IO/FS track, we just haven't added it to the schedule that way. I still plan to go over all topics again and consolidate the current (very preliminary) schedule. Thanks for catching this up. > Do we have an lsf-discuss mailing list this year? Might be good to > coordinate arrivals / departures for taxi sharing purposes. Yes, the list should be established AFAIK and same address as last years. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
