[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <550C6151.8070803@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:05:05 -0600
From: David Ahern <david.ahern@...cle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 4.0.0-rc4: panic in free_block
On 3/20/15 10:58 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That said, SLAB is probably also almost unheard of in high-CPU
> configurations, since slub has all the magical unlocked lists etc for
> scalability. So maybe it's a generic SLAB bug, and nobody with lots of
> CPU's is testing SLAB.
>
Evidently, it is a well known problem internally that goes back to at
least 2.6.39.
To this point I have not paid attention to the allocators. At what point
is SLUB considered stable for large systems? Is 2.6.39 stable?
As for SLAB it is not clear if this is a sparc only problem. Perhaps the
config should have a warning? It looks like SLAB is still the default
for most arch.
DaveM: do you mind if I submit a patch to change the default for sparc
to SLUB?
Now that the monster is unleashed, off to other problems...
Thanks,
David
--
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