On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mel Gorman wrote: > > That is not what I meant. I would like more higher order allocations to > > succeed. That does not mean that slubs allocation methods and flags passed > > have to stay the same. You can change the slub behavior if it helps. > > > > In this particular patch, the success rate for high order allocations > would likely decrease in low memory conditions albeit the latency when > calling the page allocator will be lower and the disruption to the > system will be less (no copying or reclaim of pages). My expectation > would be that it's cheaper for SLUB to fall back than compact memory > or reclaim pages even if this means a slab page is smaller until more > memory is free. However, if the "goodness" criteria is high order > allocation success rate, the patch shouldn't be merged. The criteria is certainly overall system performance and not a high order allocation rate. -- 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>