lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [15/17] SLUB: Support virtual fallback via SLAB_VFALLBACK
    Date
    On Monday 01 October 2007 06:12, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:09:28 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
    wrote:
    > > On Sunday 30 September 2007 05:20, Andrew Morton wrote:

    > > > We can't "run out of unfragmented memory" for an order-2 GFP_KERNEL
    > > > allocation in this workload. We go and synchronously free stuff up to
    > > > make it work.
    > > >
    > > > How did this get broken?
    > >
    > > Either no more order-2 pages could be freed, or the ones that were being
    > > freed were being used by something else (eg. other order-2 slab
    > > allocations).
    >
    > No. The current design of reclaim (for better or for worse) is that for
    > order 0,1,2 and 3 allocations we just keep on trying until it works. That
    > got broken and I think it got broken at a design level when that
    > did_some_progress logic went in. Perhaps something else we did later
    > worsened things.

    It will keep trying until it works. It won't have stopped trying (unless
    I'm very mistaken?), it's just oom killing things merrily along the way.
    -
    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: 2007-09-30 22:51    [W:0.021 / U:28.912 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site