[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105121314530.29359@router.home>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:16:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
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>,
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:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 01:03:05PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 May 2011, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > > even order 3 is causing troubles (which doesn't immediately make lumpy
> > > activated, it only activates when priority is < DEF_PRIORITY-2, so
> > > after 2 loops failing to reclaim nr_to_reclaim pages), imagine what
> >
> > That is a significant change for SLUB with the merge of the compaction
> > code.
>
> Even before compaction was posted, I had to shut off lumpy reclaim or
> it'd hang all the time with frequent order 9 allocations. Maybe lumpy
> was better before, maybe lumpy "improved" its reliability recently,
Well we are concerned about order 2 and 3 alloc here. Checking for <
PAGE_ORDER_COSTLY to avoid the order 9 lumpy reclaim looks okay.
--
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