[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110513094958.GA3569@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 10:49:58 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
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, May 12, 2011 at 08:00:18PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> BTW, it comes to mind in patch 2, SLUB should clear __GFP_REPEAT too
> (not only __GFP_NOFAIL). Clearing __GFP_WAIT may be worth it or not
> with COMPACTION=y, definitely good idea to clear __GFP_WAIT unless
> lumpy is restricted to __GFP_REPEAT|__GFP_NOFAIL.
This is in V2 (unreleased, testing in progress and was running
overnight). I noticed that clearing __GFP_REPEAT is required for
reclaim/compaction if direct reclaimers from SLUB are to return false in
should_continue_reclaim() and bail out from high-order allocation
properly. As it is, there is a possibility for slub high-order direct
reclaimers to loop in reclaim/compaction for a long time. This is
only important when CONFIG_COMPACTION=y.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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