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, 15 May 2020 21:45:30 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/19] mm: slub: implement SLUB version of
 obj_to_index()
In-Reply-To: <20200513005741.GA67541@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2005152142570.119998@www.lameter.com>
References: <20200423000530.GA63356@carbon.lan> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004250208500.7624@www.lameter.com> <20200425024625.GA107755@carbon.lan> <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004271618340.27701@www.lameter.com> <20200427164638.GC114719@carbon.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004301625490.1693@www.lameter.com> <20200430171558.GA339283@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2005022353330.1987@www.lameter.com> <20200504182922.GA20009@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2005082130570.65713@www.lameter.com>
 <20200513005741.GA67541@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
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 Tue, 12 May 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> > Add it to the metadata at the end of the object. Like the debugging
> > information or the pointer for RCU freeing.
>
> Enabling debugging metadata currently disables the cache merging.
> I doubt that it's acceptable to sacrifice the cache merging in order
> to embed the memcg pointer?

Well then keep the merging even if you have a memcg pointer.

The disabling for debugging is only to simplify debugging. You dont have
to deal with multiple caches actually using the same storage structures.

> Figuring out all these details will likely take several weeks, so the whole
> thing will be delayed for one-two major releases (in the best case). Given that
> the current implementation saves ~40% of slab memory, I think there is some value
> in delivering it as it is. So I wonder if the idea of embedding the pointer
> should be considered a blocker, or it can be implemented of top of the proposed
> code (given it's not a user-facing api or something like this)?

Sorry no idea from my end here.