Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752910Ab1EPImh (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2011 04:42:37 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:42180 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752634Ab1EPImf (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2011 04:42:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:42:30 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , James Bottomley , Dave Jones , Andrew Morton , Colin King , Raghavendra D Prabhu , Jan Kara , Chris Mason , 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 Message-ID: <20110516084230.GC5279@suse.de> References: <20110512154649.GB4559@redhat.com> <1305216023.2575.54.camel@mulgrave.site> <1305217843.2575.57.camel@mulgrave.site> <20110512180018.GN11579@random.random> <20110513094958.GA3569@suse.de> <20110515163906.GB25981@random.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110515163906.GB25981@random.random> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1444 Lines: 32 On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 06:39:06PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:00:18PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > > > > > > BTW, it comes to mind in patch 2, SLUB should clear __GFP_REPEAT too > > > (not only __GFP_NOFAIL). Clearing __GFP_WAIT may be worth it or not > > > with COMPACTION=y, definitely good idea to clear __GFP_WAIT unless > > > lumpy is restricted to __GFP_REPEAT|__GFP_NOFAIL. > > > > This is in V2 (unreleased, testing in progress and was running > > overnight). I noticed that clearing __GFP_REPEAT is required for > > reclaim/compaction if direct reclaimers from SLUB are to return false in > > should_continue_reclaim() and bail out from high-order allocation > > properly. As it is, there is a possibility for slub high-order direct > > reclaimers to loop in reclaim/compaction for a long time. This is > > only important when CONFIG_COMPACTION=y. > > Agreed. However I don't expect anyone to allocate from slub(/slab) > with __GFP_REPEAT so it's probably only theoretical but more correct > indeed ;). Networking layer does specify __GFP_REPEAT. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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/