Re: [15/17] SLUB: Support virtual fallback via SLAB_VFALLBACK

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Monday 01 October 2007 06:12, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:09:28 +1000 Nick Piggin <[email protected]> 
wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 September 2007 05:20, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > > We can't "run out of unfragmented memory" for an order-2 GFP_KERNEL
> > > allocation in this workload.  We go and synchronously free stuff up to
> > > make it work.
> > >
> > > How did this get broken?
> >
> > Either no more order-2 pages could be freed, or the ones that were being
> > freed were being used by something else (eg. other order-2 slab
> > allocations).
>
> No.  The current design of reclaim (for better or for worse) is that for
> order 0,1,2 and 3 allocations we just keep on trying until it works.  That
> got broken and I think it got broken at a design level when that
> did_some_progress logic went in.  Perhaps something else we did later
> worsened things.

It will keep trying until it works. It won't have stopped trying (unless
I'm very mistaken?), it's just oom killing things merrily along the way.
-
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/

[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]
  Powered by Linux