[the head of the thread is http://lkml.kernel.org/r/08524819-14ef-81d0-fa90-d7af13c6b9d5@xxxxxxx] On Mon 16-04-18 21:57:50, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > 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 OK, noted. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
