lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: kswapd min order, slub max order [was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24]
    Date
    On Wednesday 03 October 2007 02:06, Hugh Dickins wrote:
    > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > #
    > > # slub && antifrag
    > > #
    > > have-kswapd-keep-a-minimum-order-free-other-than-order-0.patch
    > > only-check-absolute-watermarks-for-alloc_high-and-alloc_harder-allocation
    > >s.patch slub-exploit-page-mobility-to-increase-allocation-order.patch
    > > slub-reduce-antifrag-max-order.patch
    > >
    > > I think this stuff is in the "mm stuff we don't want to merge"
    > > category. If so, I really should have dropped it ages ago.
    >
    > I agree. I spent a while last week bisecting down to see why my heavily
    > swapping loads take 30%-60% longer with -mm than mainline, and it was
    > here that they went bad. Trying to keep higher orders free is costly.

    Yeah, no there's no way we'd merge that.


    > On the other hand, hasn't SLUB efficiency been built on the expectation
    > that higher orders can be used? And it would be a twisted shame for
    > high performance to be held back by some idiot's swapping load.

    IMO it's a bad idea to create all these dependencies like this.

    If SLUB can get _more_ performance out of using higher order allocations,
    then fine. If it is starting off at a disadvantage at the same order, then it
    that should be fixed first, right?

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-03 03:45    [W:0.023 / U:91.688 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site