Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754331AbZGNRuP (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:50:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754094AbZGNRuO (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:50:14 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:21414 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753987AbZGNRuN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:50:13 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=C1QPSkLZT8Cpbu8yhDlO1EETvqyo+n4N2xlS9pqR7JeydRYE5F5fAYvdQyZdygXvU 8LYnSBec876ZXTCp5cTIQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1247593652.13426.15938.camel@nimitz> References: <20090710230043.16778.29656.stgit@hastromil.mtv.corp.google.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> <1247593652.13426.15938.camel@nimitz> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:50:02 -0700 Message-ID: <6599ad830907141050r1e9dde98l56afd37629f749e8@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Quick vmalloc vs kmalloc fix to the case where array size is too large From: Paul Menage To: Dave Hansen Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Benjamin Blum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 677 Lines: 16 On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > 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. I think it depends on how much fragmentation you've got. We've seen it fail for cpusets with (I guess) hundreds or thousands of threads. Paul -- 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/