On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > atomic allocations. And with SLUB using higher order pages, atomic !0
> > order allocations will be very very common.
>
> Oh OK.
>
> I thought we'd already fixed slub so that it didn't do that. Maybe that
> fix is in -mm but I don't think so.
>
> Trying to do atomic order-1 allocations on behalf of arbitray slab caches
> just won't fly - this is a significant degradation in kernel reliability,
> as you've very easily demonstrated.
Ummm... SLAB also does order 1 allocations. We have always done them.
See mm/slab.c
/*
* Do not go above this order unless 0 objects fit into the slab.
*/
#define BREAK_GFP_ORDER_HI 1
#define BREAK_GFP_ORDER_LO 0
static int slab_break_gfp_order = BREAK_GFP_ORDER_LO;
-
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]
