[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105161410090.4353@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.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 2/4] mm: slub: Do not wake kswapd for SLUBs speculative
high-order allocations
On Fri, 13 May 2011, Mel Gorman wrote:
> To avoid locking and per-cpu overhead, SLUB optimisically uses
> high-order allocations and falls back to lower allocations if they
> fail. However, by simply trying to allocate, kswapd is woken up to
> start reclaiming at that order. On a desktop system, two users report
> that the system is getting locked up with kswapd using large amounts
> of CPU. Using SLAB instead of SLUB made this problem go away.
>
> This patch prevents kswapd being woken up for high-order allocations.
> Testing indicated that with this patch applied, the system was much
> harder to hang and even when it did, it eventually recovered.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
--
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