On Fri, Apr 13 2018 at  5:22am -0400,
Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz> wrote:

> On 03/21/2018 07:36 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You should not be using the slab allocators for these. Allocate higher
> >>>> order pages or numbers of consecutive smaller pagess from the page
> >>>> allocator. The slab allocators are written for objects smaller than page
> >>>> size.
> >>>
> >>> So, do you argue that I need to write my own slab cache functionality
> >>> instead of using the existing slab code?
> >>
> >> Just use the existing page allocator calls to allocate and free the
> >> memory you need.
> >>
> >>> I can do it - but duplicating code is bad thing.
> >>
> >> There is no need to duplicate anything. There is lots of infrastructure
> >> already in the kernel. You just need to use the right allocation / freeing
> >> calls.
> > 
> > So, what would you recommend for allocating 640KB objects while minimizing 
> > wasted space?
> > * alloc_pages - rounds up to the next power of two
> > * kmalloc - rounds up to the next power of two
> > * alloc_pages_exact - O(n*log n) complexity; and causes memory 
> >   fragmentation if used excesivelly
> > * vmalloc - horrible performance (modifies page tables and that causes 
> >   synchronization across all CPUs)
> > 
> > anything else?
> > 
> > The slab cache with large order seems as a best choice for this.
> 
> Sorry for being late, I just read this thread and tend to agree with
> Mikulas, that this is a good use case for SL*B. If we extend the
> use-case from "space-efficient allocator of objects smaller than page
> size" to "space-efficient allocator of objects that are not power-of-two
> pages" then IMHO it turns out the implementation would be almost the
> same. All other variants listed above would lead to waste of memory or
> fragmentation.
> 
> Would this perhaps be a good LSF/MM discussion topic? Mikulas, are you
> attending, or anyone else that can vouch for your usecase?

Any further discussion on SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE should continue on list.

Mikulas won't be at LSF/MM.  But I included Mikulas' dm-bufio changes
that no longer depend on this proposed SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE (as part of
the 4.17 merge window).

Mike

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

Reply via email to