From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com (mail-wm0-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DA06B0389 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 05:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id v190so12912347wme.0 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 02:16:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m73si10098080wmg.71.2017.03.13.02.16.37 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 02:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:16:36 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] Slab Fragmentation Reduction V16 Message-ID: <20170313091635.GE31518@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170307212429.044249411@linux.com> <20170308143411.GC11034@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170313091515.GD31518@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170313091515.GD31518@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Mel Gorman , andi@firstfloor.org, Rik van Riel On Mon 13-03-17 10:15:15, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 08-03-17 09:58:58, Cristopher Lameter wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > JFTR the previous version was posted here: https://lwn.net/Articles/371892/ > > > and Dave had some concerns https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/8/329 which led > > > to a different approach and design of the slab shrinking > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/8/329. > > > > > > I haven't looked at this series yet but has those concerns been > > > addressed/considered? > > > > Well yes this has been discussed for a couple of years. The basic approach > > is not only needed for the file systems (like what Chinner was focusing > > on) but in general for slab caches. The objection was regarding the > > integration into the slab reclaim logic in vmscan.c and the filesystem > > reclaim in general. > > > > Dave and Matthew were at linux.conf.au and we agreed to first try it with > > the radix tree and then generalize from there. The reclaim logic > > was a bit hacky and we will have to find some better way to > > integrate this. > > > > There is a video on youtube capturing the discussion (My talk on movable > > kernel objects). > > Hmm, OK. There seems to be a slot to discuss this at LSFMM this year so > I hope we can discuss your proposal there. Btw. it would be great if you could summarize the discussion you had at LCA here as well. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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: email@kvack.org