[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110513112429.GF3569@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:24:29 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Reduce impact to overall system of SLUB using
high-order allocations
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:04:57PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi James!
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 05:34:27PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Yes, but only once in all the testing. With patches 1 and 2 the hang is
>
> Weird patch 2 makes the large order allocation without ~__GFP_WAIT, so
> even COMPACTION=y/n shouldn't matter anymore. Am I misreading
> something Mel?
>
> Removing ~__GFP_WAIT from patch 2 (and adding ~__GFP_REPEAT as a
> correctness improvement) and setting COMPACTION=y also should work ok.
>
should_continue_reclaim could till be looping unless __GFP_REPEAT is
cleared if CONFIG_COMPACTION is set.
> Removing ~__GFP_WAIT from patch 2 and setting COMPACTION=n is expected
> not to work well.
>
> But compaction should only make the difference if you remove
> ~__GFP_WAIT from patch 2.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists