On Wednesday 03 October 2007 02:06, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > # > > # slub && antifrag > > # > > have-kswapd-keep-a-minimum-order-free-other-than-order-0.patch > > only-check-absolute-watermarks-for-alloc_high-and-alloc_harder-allocation > >s.patch slub-exploit-page-mobility-to-increase-allocation-order.patch > > slub-reduce-antifrag-max-order.patch > > > > I think this stuff is in the "mm stuff we don't want to merge" > > category. If so, I really should have dropped it ages ago. > > I agree. I spent a while last week bisecting down to see why my heavily > swapping loads take 30%-60% longer with -mm than mainline, and it was > here that they went bad. Trying to keep higher orders free is costly.
Yeah, no there's no way we'd merge that. > On the other hand, hasn't SLUB efficiency been built on the expectation > that higher orders can be used? And it would be a twisted shame for > high performance to be held back by some idiot's swapping load. IMO it's a bad idea to create all these dependencies like this. If SLUB can get _more_ performance out of using higher order allocations, then fine. If it is starting off at a disadvantage at the same order, then it that should be fixed first, right? - 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/
