Re: [15/17] SLUB: Support virtual fallback via SLAB_VFALLBACK

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> memory got massively fragemented, as anti-frag gets easily defeated.
> setting min_free_kbytes to 12M does seem to solve it - it forces 2 max
> order blocks to stay available, so we don't mix types. however 12M on
> 128M is rather a lot.

Yes, strict ordering would be much better. On NUMA it may be possible to 
completely forbid merging. We can fall back to other nodes if necessary. 
12M is not much on a NUMA system.

But this shows that (unsurprisingly) we may have issues on systems with a 
small amounts of memory and we may not want to use higher orders on such 
systems.

The case you got may be good to use as a testcase for the virtual 
fallback. Hmmmm... Maybe it is possible to allocate the stack as a virtual 
compound page. Got some script/code to produce that problem?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux