On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:41:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 13-04-18 10:37:16, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 04:28:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 13-04-18 16:20:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > We would need kmalloc-reclaimable-X variants. It could be worth it, > > > > especially if we find more similar usages. I suspect they would be more > > > > useful than the existing dma-kmalloc-X :) > > > > > > I am still not sure why __GFP_RECLAIMABLE cannot be made work as > > > expected and account slab pages as SLAB_RECLAIMABLE > > > > Can you outline how this would work without separate caches? > > I thought that the cache would only maintain two sets of slab pages > depending on the allocation reuquests. I am pretty sure there will be > other details to iron out and 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. 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. IMO, this approach is much better than duplicating all kmalloc caches. It's definitely has to be explored and discussed. Thank you!
