Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:06:07 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
cc: Chritoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: kswapd min order, slub max order [was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24]
In-Reply-To: <20071001142222.fcaa8d57.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710021646420.4916@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
References: <20071001142222.fcaa8d57.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1126
Lines: 26

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> #
> # slub && antifrag
> #
> have-kswapd-keep-a-minimum-order-free-other-than-order-0.patch
> only-check-absolute-watermarks-for-alloc_high-and-alloc_harder-allocations.patch
> slub-exploit-page-mobility-to-increase-allocation-order.patch
> slub-reduce-antifrag-max-order.patch
> 
>   I think this stuff is in the "mm stuff we don't want to merge" category. 
>   If so, I really should have dropped it ages ago.

I agree.  I spent a while last week bisecting down to see why my heavily
swapping loads take 30%-60% longer with -mm than mainline, and it was
here that they went bad.  Trying to keep higher orders free is costly.

On the other hand, hasn't SLUB efficiency been built on the expectation
that higher orders can be used?  And it would be a twisted shame for
high performance to be held back by some idiot's swapping load.

Hugh
-
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/