[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND] slab: introduce the flag SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE
On 04/17/2018 07:26 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 04/17/2018 04:45 PM, Christopher Lameter wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>>> This patch introduces a flag SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE for slab and slub. This
>>>> flag causes allocation of larger slab caches in order to minimize wasted
>>>> space.
>>>> This is needed because we want to use dm-bufio for deduplication index and
>>>> there are existing installations with non-power-of-two block sizes (such
>>>> as 640KB). The performance of the whole solution depends on efficient
>>>> memory use, so we must waste as little memory as possible.
>>> Hmmm. Can we come up with a generic solution instead?
>> Yes please.
>>> This may mean relaxing the enforcement of the allocation max order a bit
>>> so that we can get dense allocation through higher order allocs.
>>> But then higher order allocs are generally seen as problematic.
>> I think in this case they are better than wasting/fragmenting 384kB for
>> 640kB object.
> Wasting 37% of memory is still better than the kernel randomly returning
> -ENOMEM when higher-order allocation fails.

Of course, see below.

>>> That
>>> means that callers need to be able to tolerate failures.
>> Is it any different from now? I suppose there would still be
>> smallest-order fallback involved in sl*b itself? And if your allocation

^ There: "I suppose there would still be smallest-order fallback
involved in sl*b itself?"

If SLAB doesn't currently support fallback to different order, it either
learns to do that, or keeps wasting memory and more people will migrate
to SLUB. Simple.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-17 21:16    [W:0.112 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site