On 09/19/2016 04:31 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 08:37:36AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Andi Kleen wrote:
Sounds like SLUB. SLAB would use order-0 as long as things fit. I would
hope for SLUB to fallback to order-0 (or order-1 for 8kB) instead of
OOM, though. Guess not...
It's already trying to do that, perhaps just some flags need to be
changed?
SLUB tries order-N and falls back to order 0 on failure.
Right it tries, but Linus apparently got an OOM in the order-N
allocation. So somehow the flag combination that it passes first
is not preventing the OOM killer.
But Linus' error was:
Xorg invoked oom-killer:
gfp_mask=0x240c0d0(GFP_TEMPORARY|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_ZERO), order=3,
oom_score_adj=0
There's no __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY, so it clearly wasn't the
opportunistic "initial higher-order allocation". The logical conclusion
is that it was a genuine order-3 allocation. 1kB allocation using
order-3 would silently fail without OOM or warning, and then fallback to
order-0.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>