[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200710021837.24772.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:37:24 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [15/17] SLUB: Support virtual fallback via SLAB_VFALLBACK
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:01, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 11:20 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > Really? That means we can no longer even allocate stacks for forking.
> >
> > I think I'm running with 4k stacks...
>
> 4k stacks will never fly on an SGI x86_64 NUMA configuration given the
> additional data that may be kept on the stack. We are currently
> considering to go from 8k to 16k (or even 32k) to make things work. So
> having the ability to put the stacks in vmalloc space may be something to
> look at.
i386 and x86-64 already used 8K stacks for years and they have never
really been much problem before.
They only started failing when contiguous memory is getting used up
by other things, _even with_ those anti-frag patches in there.
Bottom line is that you do not use higher order allocations when you do
not need them.
-
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