Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030332AbbKDOyw (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:54:52 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60672 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932365AbbKDOyv (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:54:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:54:46 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Robert Richter , Joonsoo Kim , Linux-sh list , Will Deacon , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Robert Richter , linux-mm@kvack.org, Tirumalesh Chalamarla , Geert Uytterhoeven , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size Message-ID: <20151104145445.GL7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1442944788-17254-1-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> <20151028190948.GJ8899@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20151103120504.GF7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20151103143858.GI7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20151103185050.GJ7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20151104123640.GK7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2056 Lines: 48 On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 07:53:50AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > The simplest option would be to make sure that off slab isn't allowed > > for caches of KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE or smaller, with the drawback that not > > only "kmalloc-128" but any other such caches will be on slab. > > The reason for an off slab configuration is denser object packing. > > > I think a better option would be to first check that there is a > > kmalloc_caches[] entry for freelist_size before deciding to go off-slab. > > Hmmm.. Yes seems to be an option. > > Maybe we simply revert commit 8fc9cf420b36 instead? I'm fine with this. Also note that the arm64 commit changing L1_CACHE_BYTES to 128 hasn't been pushed yet (it's queued for 4.4). > That does not seem to make too much sense to me and the goal of the > commit cannot be accomplished on ARM. Your patch essentially reverts > the effect anyways. In theory it only reverts the effect for the first kmalloc_cache ("kmalloc-128" in the arm64 case). Any other bigger cache which would not be mergeable with an existing one still has the potential of off-slab management. > Smaller slabs really do not need off slab management anyways since they > will only loose a few objects per slab page. IIUC, starting with 128 slab size for a 4KB page, you have 32 objects per page. The freelist takes 32 bytes (or 31), therefore you waste a single slab object. However, only 1/4 of it is used for freelist and the waste gets bigger with 256 slab size, hence the original commit. BTW, assuming L1_CACHE_BYTES is 512 (I don't ever see this happening but just in theory), we potentially have the same issue. What would save us is that INDEX_NODE would match the first "kmalloc-512" cache, so we have it pre-populated. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/