Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756177AbXJBS2e (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:28:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753843AbXJBS20 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:28:26 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:49063 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753331AbXJBS2Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:28:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:28:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Mel Gorman cc: Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: kswapd min order, slub max order [was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24] In-Reply-To: <1191350333.2708.6.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <20071001142222.fcaa8d57.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1191350333.2708.6.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1898 Lines: 39 On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > > 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. The larger order allocations may cause excessive reclaim under certain circumstances. Reclaim will continue to evict pages until a larger order page can be coalesced. And it seems that this eviction is not that well targeted at this point. So lots of pages may be needlessly evicted. > > 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. > > > > My belief is that SLUB can still use the higher orders if configured to > do so at boot-time. The loss of these patches means it won't try and do > it automatically. Christoph will chime in I'm sure. You can still manually configure those at boot time via slub_max_order etc. I think Mel and I have to rethink how to do these efficiently. Mel has some ideas and there is some talk about using the vmalloc fallback to insure that things always work. Probably we may have to tune things so that fallback is chosen if reclaim cannot get us the larger order page with reasonable effort. The maximum order of allocation used by SLUB may have to depend on the number of page structs in the system since small systems (128M was the case that Peter found) can easier get into trouble. SLAB has similar measures to avoid order 1 allocations for small systems below 32M. - 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/