On 05/24/2018 04:43 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:00:06PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Now for the issues a.k.a. why RFC:
>>
>> - I haven't find any other obvious users for reclaimable kmalloc (yet)
>
> Is that a problem? This sounds like it's enough to solve Facebook's
> problem.
>
>> - the name of caches kmalloc-reclaimable-X is rather long
>
> Yes; Christoph and I were talking about restricting slab names to 16 bytes
> just to make /proc/slabinfo easier to read. How about
>
> kmalloc-rec-128k
> 1234567890123456
>
> Just makes it ;-)
>
> Of course, somebody needs to do the work to use k/M instead of 4194304.
> We also need to bikeshed about when to switch; should it be:
>
> kmalloc-rec-512
> kmalloc-rec-1024
> kmalloc-rec-2048
> kmalloc-rec-4096
> kmalloc-rec-8192
> kmalloc-rec-16k
>
> or should it be
>
> kmalloc-rec-512
> kmalloc-rec-1k
> kmalloc-rec-2k
> kmalloc-rec-4k
> kmalloc-rec-8k
> kmalloc-rec-16k
>
> I slightly favour the latter as it'll be easier to implement. Something like
Yes, agree, start using the suffix early.
>
> static const char suffixes[3] = ' kM';
> int idx = 0;
>
> while (size > 1024) {
> size /= 1024;
> idx++;
> }
>
> sprintf("%d%c", size, suffices[idx]);
suffixes
>
> --
--
~Randy
