Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 19:46:41 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@gmail.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: slub: Default slub_max_order to 0
Message-ID: <20110512174641.GL11579@random.random>
References: <1305127773-10570-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105120942050.24560@router.home>
 <1305213359.2575.46.camel@mulgrave.site>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105121024350.26013@router.home>
 <1305214993.2575.50.camel@mulgrave.site>
 <20110512154649.GB4559@redhat.com>
 <1305216023.2575.54.camel@mulgrave.site>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105121121120.26013@router.home>
 <1305217843.2575.57.camel@mulgrave.site>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105121144320.27324@router.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105121144320.27324@router.home>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1248
Lines: 28

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:48:19AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Try order = 1 which gives you SLAB like interaction with the page
> allocator. Then we at least know that it is the order 2 and 3 allocs that
> are the problem and not something else.

order 1 should work better, because it's less likely we end up here
(which leaves RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM on and then see what happens
at the top of page_check_references())

   else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
   	sc->reclaim_mode |= syncmode;

with order 1 more likely we end up here as enough pages are freed for
order 1 and we're safe:

     else
	sc->reclaim_mode = RECLAIM_MODE_SINGLE | RECLAIM_MODE_ASYNC;

None of these issue should materialize with COMPACTION=n. Even
__GFP_WAIT can be left enabled to run compaction without expecting
adverse behavior, but running compaction may still not be worth it for
small systems where the benefit of having order 1/2/3 allocation may
not outweight the cost of compaction itself.
--
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/