Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765833AbXJXRCy (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:02:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764241AbXJXQ4o (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:56:44 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:57300 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764213AbXJXQ4n (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:56:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Pekka Enberg cc: Alexey Dobriyan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM Subject: Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds) In-Reply-To: <84144f020710231341p189435b1y5514e5be981b9b1c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <20071023181615.GA10377@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <84144f020710231304h6cba8626na4ab4bec0acda7a0@mail.gmail.com> <84144f020710231341p189435b1y5514e5be981b9b1c@mail.gmail.com> 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: 663 Lines: 16 On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Yeah, but we're _not failing_ when debugging is enabled. Thus, it's > likely, that the _failing_ (non-debug) case has potential for more > order 0 allocs, no? I am just guessing here but maybe it's > slab_order() behaving differently from calculate_slab_order() so that > we see more order 0 pressure in SLUB than SLAB? Seesm that order 0 pressure is better than order 1? - 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/