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-expl
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The maximum order of allocation used by SLUB may have to depend on the
> number of page structs in the system since small systems (128M was the
> case that Peter found) can easier get into trouble. SLAB has similar
> measures to avoid order 1 alloc
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > 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.
The larger order allocations may
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 17:06 +0100, 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-allocations.patch
> > slub-explo
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-allocations.patch
> slub-exploit-page-mobility-to-increase-allocation-order.patch
> slub-reduce-ant
5 matches
Mail list logo
