On 04/16/2018 02:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 16-04-18 14:06:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> >> For example the percpu (and other) array caches... >> >>> maybe it will turn out that such a large >>> portion of the chache would need to duplicate the state that a >>> completely new cache would be more reasonable. >> >> I'm afraid that's the case, yes. >> >>> Is this worth exploring >>> at least? I mean something like this should help with the fragmentation >>> already AFAIU. Accounting would be just free on top. >> >> Yep. It could be also CONFIG_urable so smaller systems don't need to >> deal with the memory overhead of this. >> >> So do we put it on LSF/MM agenda? > > If you volunteer to lead the discussion, then I do not have any > objections. Sure, let's add the topic of SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE [1] as well. Something like "Supporting reclaimable kmalloc caches and large non-buddy-sized objects in slab allocators" ? [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=152156671614796&w=2
