[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705140935530.10801@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Why does this have to handled by the slab allocators at all? If you have
> > free pages in the page allocator then the slab allocators will be able to
> > use that reserve.
>
> Yes, too freely. GFP flags are only ever checked when you allocate a new
> page. Hence, if you have a low reaching alloc allocating a slab page;
> subsequent non critical GFP_KERNEL allocs can fill up that slab. Hence
> you would need to reserve a slab per object instead of the normal
> packing.
This is all about making one thread fail rather than another? Note that
the allocations are a rather compex affair in the slab allocators. Per
node and per cpu structures play a big role.
-
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