On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > atomic allocations. And with SLUB using higher order pages, atomic !0 > > order allocations will be very very common. > > Oh OK. > > I thought we'd already fixed slub so that it didn't do that. Maybe that > fix is in -mm but I don't think so. > > Trying to do atomic order-1 allocations on behalf of arbitray slab caches > just won't fly - this is a significant degradation in kernel reliability, > as you've very easily demonstrated. Ummm... SLAB also does order 1 allocations. We have always done them. See mm/slab.c /* * Do not go above this order unless 0 objects fit into the slab. */ #define BREAK_GFP_ORDER_HI 1 #define BREAK_GFP_ORDER_LO 0 static int slab_break_gfp_order = BREAK_GFP_ORDER_LO; - 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
