Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:44:53 +0300 | Subject | Re: upcoming kerneloops.org item: get_page_from_freelist | From | Pekka Enberg <> |
| |
Hi Linus,
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> hm, I didn't know that slub could fall back to lower-order allocations >> like that. Neat.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Linus Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > Slab doesn't do it, though. So we still need to get rid of the "order-1" > warning, at least (slab_break_gfp_order). > >> What's the expected value of s->min in allocate_slab()? In what >> situations would it be >0? > > For slub, s->min has an order of just "get_order(size)" (ie the minimum > order to fit an object). > > For slab, the logic is different, but if I read the code correctly it > boils down to the minimum order, except that order-1 is accepted instead > of order-0 (strictly speaking, that only happens if you have more than > 64MB of RAM). With no fallback. > > And it's quite reasonable to expect to be able to do small kmalloc's > without failing. > > So I'd suggest just doing this..
Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
That said, I do think we ought to fix SLUB not to use __GFP_FAIL for the higher order allocation regardless of this patch.
Pekka -- 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/
| |