Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: slub: Default slub_max_order to 0

[Mel Gorman]

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 06:39:06PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:00:18PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > BTW, it comes to mind in patch 2, SLUB should clear __GFP_REPEAT too
> > > (not only __GFP_NOFAIL). Clearing __GFP_WAIT may be worth it or not
> > > with COMPACTION=y, definitely good idea to clear __GFP_WAIT unless
> > > lumpy is restricted to __GFP_REPEAT|__GFP_NOFAIL.
> > 
> > This is in V2 (unreleased, testing in progress and was running
> > overnight). I noticed that clearing __GFP_REPEAT is required for
> > reclaim/compaction if direct reclaimers from SLUB are to return false in
> > should_continue_reclaim() and bail out from high-order allocation
> > properly. As it is, there is a possibility for slub high-order direct
> > reclaimers to loop in reclaim/compaction for a long time. This is
> > only important when CONFIG_COMPACTION=y.
> 
> Agreed. However I don't expect anyone to allocate from slub(/slab)
> with __GFP_REPEAT so it's probably only theoretical but more correct
> indeed ;).

Networking layer does specify __GFP_REPEAT.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/