[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105121255060.28493@router.home>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:00:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
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, 12 May 2011, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> order 1 should work better, because it's less likely we end up here
> (which leaves RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM on and then see what happens
> at the top of page_check_references())
>
> else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
Why is this DEF_PRIORITY - 2? Shouldnt it be DEF_PRIORITY? An accomodation
for SLAB order 1 allocs?
May I assume that the case of order 2 and 3 allocs in that case was not
very well tested after the changes to introduce compaction since people
were focusing on RHEL testing?
--
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