lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] dcache: account external names as indirectly reclaimable memory
On Mon 16-04-18 14:06:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 04/16/2018 01:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 13-04-18 10:37:16, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 04:28:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Fri 13-04-18 16:20:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>>> We would need kmalloc-reclaimable-X variants. It could be worth it,
> >>>> especially if we find more similar usages. I suspect they would be more
> >>>> useful than the existing dma-kmalloc-X :)
> >>>
> >>> I am still not sure why __GFP_RECLAIMABLE cannot be made work as
> >>> expected and account slab pages as SLAB_RECLAIMABLE
> >>
> >> Can you outline how this would work without separate caches?
> >
> > I thought that the cache would only maintain two sets of slab pages
> > depending on the allocation reuquests. I am pretty sure there will be
> > other details to iron out and
>
> 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.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-16 14:28    [W:0.112 / U:12.168 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site