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?