lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710241941200.30364@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:43:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds) On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Ummm... all unreclaimable is set! Are you mlocking the pages in memory? Or > > what causes this? All pages under writeback? What is the dirty ratio set > > to? > > Why is SLUB behaving differently, though. Nore sure. Are we really sure that this does not occur using SLAB? > Memory efficiency wouldn't be the reason, would it? I mean, SLUB > should be more efficient than SLAB, plus have less data lying around > in queues. SLAB may have data around in queues which (if the stars align the right way) may allow it to go longer without having to get a page from the page allocator. - 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