Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:55:29 -0700 (PDT) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [15/17] SLUB: Support virtual fallback via SLAB_VFALLBACK |
| |
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > atomic allocations. And with SLUB using higher order pages, atomic !0 > > order allocations will be very very common. > > Oh OK. > > I thought we'd already fixed slub so that it didn't do that. Maybe that > fix is in -mm but I don't think so. > > Trying to do atomic order-1 allocations on behalf of arbitray slab caches > just won't fly - this is a significant degradation in kernel reliability, > as you've very easily demonstrated.
Ummm... SLAB also does order 1 allocations. We have always done them.
See mm/slab.c
/* * Do not go above this order unless 0 objects fit into the slab. */ #define BREAK_GFP_ORDER_HI 1 #define BREAK_GFP_ORDER_LO 0 static int slab_break_gfp_order = BREAK_GFP_ORDER_LO;
- 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/
| |