From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f197.google.com (mail-wr0-f197.google.com [209.85.128.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617706B0003 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr0-f197.google.com with SMTP id k27so12507415wre.23 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 05:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a5si592932eda.293.2018.04.16.05.40.46 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Apr 2018 05:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: slab: introduce the flag SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE References: <20180320173512.GA19669@bombadil.infradead.org> <20c58a03-90a8-7e75-5fc7-856facfb6c8a@suse.cz> <20180413151019.GA5660@redhat.com> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:38:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180413151019.GA5660@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mike Snitzer Cc: Mikulas Patocka , Christopher Lameter , Matthew Wilcox , Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton On 04/13/2018 05:10 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13 2018 at 5:22am -0400, > Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> >> Would this perhaps be a good LSF/MM discussion topic? Mikulas, are you >> attending, or anyone else that can vouch for your usecase? > > Any further discussion on SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE should continue on list. > > Mikulas won't be at LSF/MM. But I included Mikulas' dm-bufio changes > that no longer depend on this proposed SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE (as part of > the 4.17 merge window). Can you or Mikulas briefly summarize how the dependency is avoided, and whether if (something like) SLAB_MINIMIZE_WASTE were implemented, the dm-bufio code would happily switch to it, or not? Thanks, Vlastimil > Mike >