[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305217843.2575.57.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:30:43 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Thu, 2011-05-12 at 11:27 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > However, the fact remains that this seems to be a slub problem and it
> > needs fixing.
>
> Why are you so fixed on slub in these matters?
Because, as has been hashed out in the thread, changing SLUB to SLAB
makes the hang go away.
> Its an key component but
> there is a high interaction with other subsystems. There was no recent
> change in slub that changed the order of allocations. There were changes
> affecting the reclaim logic. Slub has been working just fine with the
> existing allocation schemes for a long time.
So suggest an alternative root cause and a test to expose it.
James
--
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