LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>
To: Joonsoo Kim <>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <>,, LKML <>,
	Linux Memory Management List <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:55:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150129074443.GA19607@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:44:43 +0900
Joonsoo Kim <> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:30:56AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > The default when no options are specified is to first exhaust the node
> > partial objects, then allocate new slabs as long as we have more than
> > objects per page left and only then satisfy from cpu local object. I think
> > that is satisfactory for the majority of the cases.
> > 
> > The detailed control options were requested at the meeting in Auckland at
> > the LCA. I am fine with dropping those if they do not make sense. Makes
> > the API and implementation simpler. Jesper, are you ok with this?

Yes, I'm okay with dropping the allocation flags. 

We might want to keep the flag "GFP_SLAB_ARRAY_FULL_COUNT" for allowing
allocator to return less-than the requested elements (but I'm not 100%
sure).  The idea behind this is, if the allocator can "see" that it
needs to perform a (relativly) expensive operation, then I would rather
want it to return current elements (even if it's less than requested).
As this is likely very performance sensitive code using this API.

> IMHO, it'd be better to choose a proper way of allocation by slab
> itself and not to expose options to API user. We could decide the
> best option according to current status of kmem_cache and requested
> object number and internal implementation.
> Is there any obvious example these option are needed for user?

The use-cases were, if the subsystem/user know about their use-case e.g.
1) needing a large allocation which does not need to be cache hot,
2) needing a smaller (e.g 8-16 elems) allocation that should be cache hot.

But, as you argue, I guess it is best to leave this up to the slab
implementation as the status of the kmem_cache is only known to the
allocator itself.

Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Sr. Network Kernel Developer at Red Hat
  Author of

  reply	other threads:[~2015-02-03 22:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-23 21:37 [RFC 0/3] Slab allocator " Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for " Christoph Lameter
2015-01-27  8:21   ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-27 16:57     ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-28  1:33       ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-28 15:30         ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-29  7:44           ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-02-03 22:55             ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
2015-01-23 21:37 ` [RFC 2/3] slub: Support " Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` [RFC 3/3] Array alloc test code Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 22:57 ` [RFC 0/3] Slab allocator array operations Andrew Morton
2015-01-24  0:28   ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-03 23:19     ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-02-06 18:39       ` Christoph Lameter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).