Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754276AbZGNRro (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:47:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754162AbZGNRrn (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:47:43 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:42856 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754149AbZGNRrl (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:47:41 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Quick vmalloc vs kmalloc fix to the case where array size is too large From: Dave Hansen To: Paul Menage Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Benjamin Blum In-Reply-To: <6599ad830907141028y50f36d63h8ea06f73ff369591@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090710230043.16778.29656.stgit@hastromil.mtv.corp.google.com> <20090710230205.16778.11707.stgit@hastromil.mtv.corp.google.com> <4A5AA3E7.9070800@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090713150303.70ab5176.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <2f86c2480907130827u7d2b062bw26bbb80a8e3de657@mail.gmail.com> <20090714084950.2401d9a6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830907132050n226aecb3ucab6746a4d0e81fa@mail.gmail.com> <20090714125334.b476aa78.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830907132104o55d31ccexb15e5aa35c31416e@mail.gmail.com> <20090714132538.ac0bc44a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830907141028y50f36d63h8ea06f73ff369591@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:47:32 -0700 Message-Id: <1247593652.13426.15938.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 868 Lines: 21 On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 10:28 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:25 PM, KAMEZAWA > Hiroyuki wrote: > > My point is > > - More PIDs, More time necessary to read procs file. > > Right now, many pids => impossible to read procs file due to kmalloc > failure. (This was always the case with cpusets too). So using kmalloc > in those cases is a strict improvement. How big were those allocations that were failing? The code made it appear that order-2 (PAGE_SIZE*4) allocations were failing. That's a bit lower than I'd expect the page allocator to start failing. -- Dave -- 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/