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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site