[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1107201638520.4921@tiger>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:42:25 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...allels.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm-slab: allocate kmem_cache with __GFP_REPEAT
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> The changelog isn't that convincing, really. This is kmem_cache_create()
>> so I'm surprised we'd ever get NULL here in practice. Does this fix some
>> problem you're seeing? If this is really an issue, I'd blame the page
>> allocator as GFP_KERNEL should just work.
>
> nf_conntrack creates separate slab-cache for each net-namespace,
> this patch of course not eliminates the chance of failure, but makes it more
> acceptable.
I'm still surprised you are seeing failures. mm/slab.c hasn't changed
significantly in a long time. Why hasn't anyone reported this before? I'd
still be inclined to shift the blame to the page allocator... Mel,
Christoph?
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> struct kmem_size for slub is more compact, it uses pecpu-pointers instead of
> dumb NR_CPUS-size array.
> probably better to fix this side...
So how big is 'struct kmem_cache' for your configuration anyway? Fixing
the per-cpu data structures would be nice but I'm guessing it'll be
slightly painful for mm/slab.c.
Pekka
--
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