From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 342BA22F00 for ; Thu, 2 May 2024 07:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714636798; cv=none; b=ReiLIHs1jWqbkmwZReRiNghomAAw2/Ls7PUGVMkkhUkN7epasi+NtOjtNNXwvmVF2BqFJkWlf36pQulQqmmKrFbePr5LVrH8x9te7UchBb7owRayiE8HxpYoITpCq7DIaJMcclKcA1mk8FTJSOR8RJZTqUoDQL5/tZDoFJ/VGRk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714636798; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9B+2TmTVP1i04rXUCRbYj07g/tdiApnT6mJNCpaQ+vY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=UJ6LE74Y2Y6KsfBqWuCbtu9/JIgqKMb+xwAgepTaFpUCPMVkwH+seh55xWyHp04JVbaVcFsLYayQC3xnsPjwbbkEywqNnPT0aRj/60kGHcPR0aFqG5lRWmDbW8NVHG62RsTgsErpiUHbHHwmesf1r0GxWv5ypJ2iFYELgc7EZWg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=OCfJTmIN; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b=OCfJTmIN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.135.223.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="OCfJTmIN"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=suse.com header.i=@suse.com header.b="OCfJTmIN" Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 526CE350C7; Thu, 2 May 2024 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1714636795; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=jwMXEhuqwtOAvaIoD03YuDzdsGEFsjaWp6fUquJMkxg=; b=OCfJTmINt3WDycBW5M7CQlWJR2l8g6c++aCLHxCaQLn8iGxJ8ZrYkyYFvmvHKRJKaZUP2L 4q5iwipvd5QzWAX//nmADpGHhewpLJtvASBVQjGHOzmGIwS6dc2xcSVWONe1Ks0VvpVlHs iBBF77xAJlN/mq/4O6pBp0YIDIJNN9g= Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=OCfJTmIN DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1714636795; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=jwMXEhuqwtOAvaIoD03YuDzdsGEFsjaWp6fUquJMkxg=; b=OCfJTmINt3WDycBW5M7CQlWJR2l8g6c++aCLHxCaQLn8iGxJ8ZrYkyYFvmvHKRJKaZUP2L 4q5iwipvd5QzWAX//nmADpGHhewpLJtvASBVQjGHOzmGIwS6dc2xcSVWONe1Ks0VvpVlHs iBBF77xAJlN/mq/4O6pBp0YIDIJNN9g= Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39D0113957; Thu, 2 May 2024 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id obG8C/tHM2aCWAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 02 May 2024 07:59:55 +0000 Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 09:59:50 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, bpf Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] SLUB: what's next? Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.01 X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 526CE350C7 X-Spam-Level: X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd2.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.01 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.com:s=susede1]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; DNSWL_BLOCKED(0.00)[2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97:from,2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167:received]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.com:s=susede1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.com:dkim]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.com:+] 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? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs