Subject: Re: [15/17] SLUB: Support virtual fallback via SLAB_VFALLBACK
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
       Mel Gorman <mel@skynet.ie>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>,
       Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709281014060.4713@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
References: <20070919033605.785839297@sgi.com>
	 <20070919033643.763818012@sgi.com>
	 <200709280742.38262.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709281014060.4713@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:55:19 +0200
Message-Id: <1191002119.18147.80.camel@lappy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 919
Lines: 24


On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 10:33 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> Again I have not seen any fallbacks to vmalloc in my testing. What we are 
> doing here is mainly to address your theoretical cases that we so far have 
> never seen to be a problem and increase the reliability of allocations of
> page orders larger than 3 to a usable level. So far I have so far not 
> dared to enable orders larger than 3 by default.

take a recent -mm kernel, boot with mem=128M.

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.


-
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/