[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105120942050.24560@router.home>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:43:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: slub: Default slub_max_order to 0
On Wed, 11 May 2011, Mel Gorman wrote:
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -2198,7 +2198,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_free);
> * take the list_lock.
> */
> static int slub_min_order;
> -static int slub_max_order = PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER;
> +static int slub_max_order;
If we really need to do this then do not push this down to zero please.
SLAB uses order 1 for the meax. Lets at least keep it theere.
We have been using SLUB for a long time. Why is this issue arising now?
Due to compaction etc making reclaim less efficient?
--
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