[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070929020141.e7684eb8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:01:41 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
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 Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:53:41 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 10:47 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Ah, right, that was the detail... all this lumpy reclaim is useless for
> > atomic allocations. And with SLUB using higher order pages, atomic !0
> > order allocations will be very very common.
> >
> > One I can remember was:
> >
> > add_to_page_cache()
> > radix_tree_insert()
> > radix_tree_node_alloc()
> > kmem_cache_alloc()
> >
> > which is an atomic callsite.
> >
> > Which leaves us in a situation where we can load pages, because there is
> > free memory, but can't manage to allocate memory to track them..
>
> Ah, I found a boot log of one of these sessions, its also full of
> order-2 OOMs.. :-/
oom-killings, or page allocation failures? The latter, one hopes.
-
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