Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] SLUB: what's next?

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 5/2/24 09:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 30-04-24 17:42:18, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to propose a session about the next steps for SLUB. This is
>> different from the BOF about sheaves that Matthew suggested, which would be
>> not suitable for the whole group due to being not fleshed out enough yet.
>> But the session could be scheduled after the BOF so if we do brainstorm
>> something promising there, the result could be discussed as part of the full
>> session.
>>
>> Aside from that my preliminary plan is to discuss:
>>
>> - what was made possible by reducing the slab allocators implementations to
>> a single one, and what else could be done now with a single implementation
>>
>> - the work-in-progress work (for now in the context of maple tree) on SLUB
>> per-cpu array caches and preallocation
>>
>> - what functionality would SLUB need to gain so the extra caching done by
>> bpf allocator on top wouldn't be necessary? (kernel/bpf/memalloc.c)
>>
>> - similar wrt lib/objpool.c (did you even noticed it was added? :)
>>
>> - maybe the mempool functionality could be better integrated as well?
>>
>> - are there more cases where people have invented layers outside mm and that
>> could be integrated with some effort? IIRC io_uring also has some caching on
>> top currently...
>>
>> - better/more efficient memcg integration?
>>
>> - any other features people would like SLUB to have?
> 
> Thanks a lot Vlastimi. This is quite a list. Do you think this is a fit
> into a single time slot or would that benefit from splitting into 2
> slots?

I think single slot is fine, could schedule another one later if we
don't fit?