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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200608230654.828134-1-guro@fb.com> <CALvZod7ThL=yMwxzCLvrTtq=+Dr5ooUSX-iFP8AhiAGURByFBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200617024147.GA10812@carbon.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20200617024147.GA10812@carbon.lan>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:05:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod4vLQb4kns=ao8btL_g--9axZfcaxhMnj+CoTrCkyWoWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/19] The new cgroup slab memory controller
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 7:41 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 06:46:56PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:07 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:
> > >
[...]
> >
> > Have you performed any [perf] testing on SLAB with this patchset?
>
> The accounting part is the same for SLAB and SLUB, so there should be no
> significant difference. I've checked that it compiles, boots and passes
> kselftests. And that memory savings are there.
>

What about performance? Also you mentioned that sharing kmem-cache
between accounted and non-accounted can have additional overhead. Any
difference between SLAB and SLUB for such a case?