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?