[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305228072.2575.67.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 14:21:12 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, 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, 2011-05-12 at 13:46 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 18:55 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 10:43 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > However, since you admit even you see problems, let's concentrate on
> > > > fixing them rather than recriminations?
> > >
> > > Yes, please. So does dropping max_order to 1 help?
> > > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER is set to 3 in 2.6.39-rc7.
> >
> > Just booting with max_slab_order=1 (and none of the other patches
> > applied) I can still get the machine to go into kswapd at 99%, so it
> > doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
>
> slub_max_order=1 right? Not max_slab_order.
Yes.
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