From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb0-f198.google.com (mail-yb0-f198.google.com [209.85.213.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C5D6B0003 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yb0-f198.google.com with SMTP id h184-v6so10233021ybg.16 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net. [69.252.207.39]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e62si9267384qkd.41.2018.04.16.08.19.25 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:18:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Christopher Lameter Subject: Re: slab: introduce the flag SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20c58a03-90a8-7e75-5fc7-856facfb6c8a@suse.cz> <20180413151019.GA5660@redhat.com> <20180416142703.GA22422@redhat.com> <20180416144638.GA22484@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mikulas Patocka Cc: Mike Snitzer , Vlastimil Babka , Matthew Wilcox , Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > Please clarify further, thanks! > > Mike > > Yes, using a slab cache currently doesn't avoid this rouding (it needs the > SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE patch to do that). Or an increase in slab_max_order