Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:24:13 +0100
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
CC:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dcache: account external names as indirectly
 reclaimable memory
Message-ID: <20180417112412.GB28901@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
References: <20180305133743.12746-1-guro@fb.com>
 <20180305133743.12746-5-guro@fb.com>
 <20180413133519.GA213834@rodete-laptop-imager.corp.google.com>
 <20180413135923.GT17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <13f1f5b5-f3f8-956c-145a-4641fb996048@suse.cz>
 <20180413142821.GW17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20180413143716.GA5378@cmpxchg.org>
 <20180416114144.GK17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180416114144.GK17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2018 11:24:23.4286 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 49ef788f-3a1a-4a95-43d2-08d5a455c633
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2PR15MB1075
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-04-17_06:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 01:41:44PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-04-18 10:37:16, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 04:28:21PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 13-04-18 16:20:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > We would need kmalloc-reclaimable-X variants. It could be worth it,
> > > > especially if we find more similar usages. I suspect they would be more
> > > > useful than the existing dma-kmalloc-X :)
> > > 
> > > I am still not sure why __GFP_RECLAIMABLE cannot be made work as
> > > expected and account slab pages as SLAB_RECLAIMABLE
> > 
> > Can you outline how this would work without separate caches?
> 
> I thought that the cache would only maintain two sets of slab pages
> depending on the allocation reuquests. I am pretty sure there will be
> other details to iron out and maybe it will turn out that such a large
> portion of the chache would need to duplicate the state that a
> completely new cache would be more reasonable. Is this worth exploring
> at least? I mean something like this should help with the fragmentation
> already AFAIU. Accounting would be just free on top.

IMO, this approach is much better than duplicating all kmalloc caches.
It's definitely has to be explored and discussed.

Thank you!