From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
akpm@linuxfoundation.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:55:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150203235512.62738c3c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150129074443.GA19607@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:44:43 +0900
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> 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 http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
akpm@linuxfoundation.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 23:55:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150203235512.62738c3c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150129074443.GA19607@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:44:43 +0900
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> 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 http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-03 22:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-23 21:37 [RFC 0/3] Slab allocator array operations Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for " Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-27 8:21 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-27 8:21 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-27 16:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-27 16:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-28 1:33 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-28 1:33 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-28 15:30 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-28 15:30 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-29 7:44 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-29 7:44 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-02-03 22:55 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
2015-02-03 22:55 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-01-23 21:37 ` [RFC 2/3] slub: Support " Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` [RFC 3/3] Array alloc test code Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 22:57 ` [RFC 0/3] Slab allocator array operations Andrew Morton
2015-01-23 22:57 ` Andrew Morton
2015-01-24 0:28 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-24 0:28 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-03 23:19 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-02-03 23:19 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-02-06 18:39 ` Christoph Lameter
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150203235512.62738c3c@redhat.com \
--to=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.