Re: [PATCH RESEND] slab: introduce the flag SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE

[Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

> On 04/17/2018 04:45 PM, Christopher Lameter wrote:

> > 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.

Well typically we have suggested that people use vmalloc in the past.


> > Note that SLUB will fall back to smallest order already if a failure
> > occurs so increasing slub_max_order may not be that much of an issue.
> >
> > Maybe drop the max order limit completely and use MAX_ORDER instead?
>
> For packing, sure. For performance, please no (i.e. don't try to
> allocate MAX_ORDER for each and every cache).

No of course not. We would have to modify the order selection on kmem
cache creation.

> > 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
> is so large it can fail even with the fallback (i.e. >= costly order),
> you need to tolerate failures anyway?

Failures can occur even with < costly order as far as I can telkl. Order 0
is the only safe one.

> One corner case I see is if there is anyone who would rather use their
> own fallback instead of the space-wasting smallest-order fallback.
> Maybe we could map some GFP flag to indicate that.

Well if you have a fallback then maybe the slab allocator should not fall
back on its own but let the caller deal with it.