[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705101547020.14064@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@...net.skynet.ie>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nicolas.Mailhot@...oste.net,
"bugme-daemon@...nel-bugs.osdl.org"
<bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug 8464] New: autoreconf: page allocation failure. order:2,
mode:0x84020
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > I cannot predict how allocations on a slab will be performed. In order
> > to avoid the higher order allocations in we would have to add a flag
> > that tells SLUB at slab creation creation time that this cache will be
> > used for atomic allocs and thus we can avoid configuring slabs in such a
> > way that they use higher order allocs.
> >
>
> It is an option. I had the gfp flags passed in to kmem_cache_create() in
> mind for determining this but SLUB creates slabs differently and different
> flags could be passed into kmem_cache_alloc() of course.
So we have a collection of flags to add
SLAB_USES_ATOMIC
SLAB_TEMPORARY
SLAB_PERSISTENT
SLAB_RECLAIMABLE
SLAB_MOVABLE
?
> Another alternative is that anti-frag used to also group high-order
> allocations together and make it hard to fallback to those areas
> for non-atomic allocations. It is currently backed out by the
> patch dont-group-high-order-atomic-allocations.patch because
> it was intended for rare high-order short-lived allocations
> such as e1000 that are currently dealt with by MIGRATE_RESERVE
> (bias-the-location-of-pages-freed-for-min_free_kbytes-in-the-same-max_order_nr_pages-blocks.patch)
> The high-order atomic groupings may help here because the high-order
> allocations are long-lived and would claim contiguous areas.
>
> The last alternative I think I mentioned already is to have the minimum
> order kswapd reclaims as the same order SLUB uses instead of 0 so that
> min_free_kbytes is kept at higher orders than current.
Would you get a patch to Nicholas to test either of these solutions?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists