lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [15/17] SLUB: Support virtual fallback via SLAB_VFALLBACK
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:25:50 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

>
> On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 11:20 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > > start 2 processes that each mmap a separate 64M file, and which does
> > > sequential writes on them. start a 3th process that does the same with
> > > 64M anonymous.
> > >
> > > wait for a while, and you'll see order=1 failures.
> >
> > Really? That means we can no longer even allocate stacks for forking.
> >
> > Its surprising that neither lumpy reclaim nor the mobility patches can
> > deal with it? Lumpy reclaim should be able to free neighboring pages to
> > avoid the order 1 failure unless there are lots of pinned pages.
> >
> > I guess then that lots of pages are pinned through I/O?
>
> memory got massively fragemented, as anti-frag gets easily defeated.
> setting min_free_kbytes to 12M does seem to solve it - it forces 2 max
> order blocks to stay available, so we don't mix types. however 12M on
> 128M is rather a lot.
>
> its still on my todo list to look at it further..
>

That would be really really bad (as in: patch-dropping time) if those
order-1 allocations are not atomic.

What's the callsite?
-
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: 2007-09-29 10:17    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans