Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Yeah, but we're _not failing_ when debugging is enabled. Thus, it's
> likely, that the _failing_ (non-debug) case has potential for more
> order 0 allocs, no? I am just guessing here but maybe it's
> slab_order() behaving differently from calculate_slab_order() so that
> we see more order 0 pressure in SLUB than SLAB?

Seesm that order 0 pressure is better than order 1?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)
    • From: Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)
    • From: "Pekka Enberg" <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)
    • From: "Pekka Enberg" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] nsp32_restart_autoscsi(): remove error check
• Next by Date: [PATCH] Unexport asm/user.h and linux/user.h
• Previous by thread: Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)
• Next by thread: [GIT PULL] 9p: 2.6.24 patches (phase 2)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]