On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:24:49PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > > > Anyways, I think that silently relying on the fact that the allocator > > never fails small allocations is kind of unreliable. What if this > > We are not doing that though. If the allocation fails we do nothing. Yeah, that's correct, but memcg/kmem wants it to always free empty slabs (see patch 3 for details), so I'm trying to be punctual and eliminate any possibility of failure, because a failure (if it ever happened) would result in a permanent memory leak (pinned mem_cgroup + its kmem_caches). > > > > > + if (page->inuse < objects) > > > > + list_move(&page->lru, > > > > + slabs_by_inuse + page->inuse); > > > > if (!page->inuse) > > > > n->nr_partial--; > > > > } > > > > > > The condition is always true. A page that has page->inuse == objects > > > would not be on the partial list. > > > > > > > This is in case we failed to allocate the slabs_by_inuse array. We only > > have a list for empty slabs then (on stack). > > Ok in that case objects == 1. If you want to do this maybe do it in a more > general way? > > You could allocate an array on the stack to deal with the common cases. I > believe an array of 32 objects would be fine to allocate and cover most of > the slab caches on the system? Would eliminate most of the allocations in > kmem_cache_shrink. We could do that, but IMO that would only complicate the code w/o yielding any real benefits. This function is slow and called rarely anyway, so I don't think there is any point to optimize out a page allocation here. Thanks, Vladimir -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>