[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200709301416.10033.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:16:09 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
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 Monday 01 October 2007 06:12, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:09:28 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 September 2007 05:20, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > We can't "run out of unfragmented memory" for an order-2 GFP_KERNEL
> > > allocation in this workload. We go and synchronously free stuff up to
> > > make it work.
> > >
> > > How did this get broken?
> >
> > Either no more order-2 pages could be freed, or the ones that were being
> > freed were being used by something else (eg. other order-2 slab
> > allocations).
>
> No. The current design of reclaim (for better or for worse) is that for
> order 0,1,2 and 3 allocations we just keep on trying until it works. That
> got broken and I think it got broken at a design level when that
> did_some_progress logic went in. Perhaps something else we did later
> worsened things.
It will keep trying until it works. It won't have stopped trying (unless
I'm very mistaken?), it's just oom killing things merrily along the way.
-
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