On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 10:55:10AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This problem would have got worse when slub came along doing its stupid > > unnecessary high-order allocations. > > Stupid, maybe but not unnecessary because they're a performance > improvement on large CPU systems (needed because of current SLUB > design). We're scaling the allocation order based on number of CPUs > but maybe we could shrink it even more. > It's conceivable that the GFP_NOKSWAPD patch needs to be taken from the THP series and applied to slub but only when slub is ruled out as the only source of the problem. Right now, it looks like forking workloads are suffering which is unrelated to slub. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>