[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [SLUB 0/3] SLUB: The unqueued slab allocator V4
    On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:

    > Note that I am amazed that the kernbench even worked. On small machine

    How small? The machines I am testing on aren't "big" but they aren't
    misterable either.

    > I
    > seem to be getting into trouble with order 1 allocations.

    That in itself is pretty incredible. From what I see, allocations up to 3
    generally work unless they are atomic even with the vanilla kernel. That
    said, it could be because slab is holding onto the high order pages for

    > SLAB seems to be
    > able to avoid the situation by keeping higher order pages on a freelist
    > and reduce the alloc/frees of higher order pages that the page allocator
    > has to deal with. Maybe we need per order queues in the page allocator?

    I'm not sure what you mean by per-order queues. The buddy allocator
    already has per-order lists.

    > There must be something fundamentally wrong in the page allocator if the
    > SLAB queues fix this issue. I was able to fix the issue in V5 by forcing
    > SLUB to keep a mininum number of objects around regardless of the fit to
    > a page order page. Pass through is deadly since the crappy page allocator
    > cannot handle it.
    > Higher order page allocation failures can be avoided by using kmalloc.
    > Yuck! Hopefully your patches fix that fundamental problem.

    One way to find out for sure.

    Mel Gorman
    Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
    University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-09 15:03    [W:0.026 / U:52.600 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site