[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709281133570.5397@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [15/17] SLUB: Support virtual fallback via SLAB_VFALLBACK
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> memory got massively fragemented, as anti-frag gets easily defeated.
> setting min_free_kbytes to 12M does seem to solve it - it forces 2 max
> order blocks to stay available, so we don't mix types. however 12M on
> 128M is rather a lot.
Yes, strict ordering would be much better. On NUMA it may be possible to
completely forbid merging. We can fall back to other nodes if necessary.
12M is not much on a NUMA system.
But this shows that (unsurprisingly) we may have issues on systems with a
small amounts of memory and we may not want to use higher orders on such
systems.
The case you got may be good to use as a testcase for the virtual
fallback. Hmmmm... Maybe it is possible to allocate the stack as a virtual
compound page. Got some script/code to produce that problem?
-
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