[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111208073316.GA2402@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 08:33:17 +0100
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] slub: min order when debug_guardpage_minorder > 0
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 02:07:55PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> > index 7d2a996..a66be56 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -3645,6 +3645,9 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init(void)
> > struct kmem_cache *temp_kmem_cache_node;
> > unsigned long kmalloc_size;
> >
> > + if (debug_guardpage_minorder())
> > + slub_max_order = 0;
> > +
> > kmem_size = offsetof(struct kmem_cache, node) +
> > nr_node_ids * sizeof(struct kmem_cache_node *);
> >
>
> I'd recommend at least printing a warning about why slub_max_order was
> reduced because users may be concerned why they can't now change any
> cache's order with /sys/kernel/slab/cache/order.
It's only happen with debug_guardpage_minorder=N parameter, so
perhaps I'll just document that in kernel-parameters.txt
Thanks
Stanislaw
--
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