Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] kmalloc-reclaimable caches | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Date | Thu, 24 May 2018 11:40:59 -0700 |
| |
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
| |