Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 03:18:22 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
cc:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: limit count of partial slabs scanned to gather
 statistics
In-Reply-To: <20200504125656.e3d04b350c807aba8a2a7271@linux-foundation.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2005080315290.56560@www.lameter.com>
References: <158860845968.33385.4165926113074799048.stgit@buzz> <20200504125656.e3d04b350c807aba8a2a7271@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 4 May 2020, Andrew Morton wrote:

> But I guess it's better than nothing at all, unless there are
> alternative ideas?

I its highly unsusual to have such large partial lists. In a typical case
allocations whould reduce the size of the lists. 1000s? That is scary.

Are there inodes or dentries by chance?

The defrag stuff that I had been trying to do for a long time would solve
that issue but then objects would need to be made movable....