Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932293Ab1ELSAS (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2011 14:00:18 -0400 Received: from smtp104.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com ([76.13.13.43]:26461 "HELO smtp104.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1758354Ab1ELSAQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2011 14:00:16 -0400 X-Yahoo-SMTP: _Dag8S.swBC1p4FJKLCXbs8NQzyse1SYSgnAbY0- X-YMail-OSG: DPHbD6wVM1kN3ol.QbUQBbqdsUbQ4wHLRYM_92pJD805mmK lw07pbTo2Kd3ri5rwJDpGp9j5TNBGKiYCyYtbyndmLCmNttPjnoH17PufLiz LhrDGU0rTfDN4R6O6wKBuQrF1hfnmabZKQVAJH2BBmn_b8k2LhQR6aqu2XZR ikZmcKyjJfQU7d2Kv00880cNLMpn24wkeAVzFVtXboBqhignlgWh1XZWAO_9 JpOe5RU5W3pK86K.4HTyiU.79Uw6i8gNPtyLddWlTwrtCQrojXWz0uv9tvqY BzYFJKlsdk36wgW7e.C9t2y.BTxvbg8WYMbZLNTPDoq9MHl5J X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:00:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@router.home To: Andrea Arcangeli cc: James Bottomley , Dave Jones , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Colin King , Raghavendra D Prabhu , Jan Kara , Chris Mason , Pekka Enberg , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , linux-fsdevel , linux-mm , linux-kernel , linux-ext4 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: slub: Default slub_max_order to 0 In-Reply-To: <20110512174641.GL11579@random.random> Message-ID: References: <1305127773-10570-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1305213359.2575.46.camel@mulgrave.site> <1305214993.2575.50.camel@mulgrave.site> <20110512154649.GB4559@redhat.com> <1305216023.2575.54.camel@mulgrave.site> <1305217843.2575.57.camel@mulgrave.site> <20110512174641.GL11579@random.random> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 809 Lines: 20 On Thu, 12 May 2011, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > 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) Why is this DEF_PRIORITY - 2? Shouldnt it be DEF_PRIORITY? An accomodation for SLAB order 1 allocs? May I assume that the case of order 2 and 3 allocs in that case was not very well tested after the changes to introduce compaction since people were focusing on RHEL testing? -- 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/