Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:16:17 -0800
From:   Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] mm, slub: lower the default slub_max_order with
 CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
Message-ID: <Y37F4R2Wkw04qzgY@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
References: <20221121171202.22080-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20221121171202.22080-6-vbabka@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221121171202.22080-6-vbabka@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 06:11:55PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> With CONFIG_SLUB_TINY we want to minimize memory overhead. By lowering
> the default slub_max_order we can make slab allocations use smaller
> pages. However depending on object sizes, order-0 might not be the best
> due to increased fragmentation. When testing on a 8MB RAM k210 system by
> Damien Le Moal [1], slub_max_order=1 had the best results, so use that
> as the default for CONFIG_SLUB_TINY.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/6a1883c4-4c3f-545a-90e8-2cd805bcf4ae@opensource.wdc.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>

Thanks!