[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708061052160.24256@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 10:56:13 -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,
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>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Steve Dickson <SteveD@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] foundations for reserve-based allocation
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> We want a guarantee for N bytes from kmalloc(), this translates to a demand
> on the slab allocator for 2*N+m (due to the power-of-two nature of kmalloc
> slabs), where m is the meta-data needed by the allocator itself.
The guarantee occurs in what context? Looks like its global here but
allocations may be restricted to a cpuset context? What happens in a
GFP_THISNODE allocation? Or a memory policy restricted allocations?
> So we need functions translating our demanded kmalloc space into a page
> reserve limit, and then need to provide a reserve of pages.
Only kmalloc? What about skb heads and such?
> And we need to ensure that once we hit the reserve, the slab allocator honours
> the reserve's access. That is, a regular allocation may not get objects from
> a slab allocated from the reserves.
>From a cpuset we may hit the reserves since cpuset memory is out and then
the rest of the system fails allocations?
-
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