On 05/24/2018 09:18 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 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) {
I would use (size >= 1024)
so that 1M is printed instead of 1024K.
>> size /= 1024;
>> idx++;
>> }
>>
>> sprintf("%d%c", size, suffices[idx]);
>
> suffixes
>>
>> --
>
>
--
~Randy
