From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243DACA9EA0 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:22:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E2D21783 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:22:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D2E2D21783 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 465E66B0007; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4169A6B0008; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:22:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 379F86B000A; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:22:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0246.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.246]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192616B0007 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:22:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin04.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D532181AF5C3 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:22:08 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76071483936.04.table23_4cdab9537ad58 X-HE-Tag: table23_4cdab9537ad58 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1771 Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:22:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5E6B486; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:22:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:22:06 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Roman Gushchin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, Shakeel Butt , Vladimir Davydov , Waiman Long , Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] The new slab memory controller Message-ID: <20191022132206.GN9379@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20191018002820.307763-1-guro@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191018002820.307763-1-guro@fb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu 17-10-19 17:28:04, Roman Gushchin wrote: [...] > Using a drgn* script I've got an estimation of slab utilization on > a number of machines running different production workloads. In most > cases it was between 45% and 65%, and the best number I've seen was > around 85%. Turning kmem accounting off brings it to high 90s. Also > it brings back 30-50% of slab memory. It means that the real price > of the existing slab memory controller is way bigger than a pointer > per page. How much of the memory are we talking about here? Also is there any pattern for specific caches that tend to utilize much worse than others? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs