From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <415B90F5.4060309@us.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:52:05 -0700 From: badari MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: slab fragmentation ? References: <1096500963.12861.21.camel@dyn318077bld.beaverton.ibm.com> <20040929204143.134154bc.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040929204143.134154bc.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: manfred@colorfullife.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Andrew Morton wrote: >Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > >># name : tunables : slabdata >>size-40 2633 11468 64 61 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 188 188 0 >>size-40 2633 11468 64 61 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 188 188 0 >>size-40 2633 11468 64 61 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 188 188 0 >>size-40 2633 11468 64 61 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 188 188 0 >>size-40 4457 27084 64 61 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 444 444 0 >>size-40 7685 59292 64 61 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 972 972 0 >>size-40 10761 89548 64 61 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 1468 1468 0 >>size-40 13589 119316 64 61 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 1956 1956 0 >>size-40 16717 149084 64 61 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 2444 2444 0 >> >> > >That looks like plain brokenness rather than fragmentation. We shouldn't >be allocating new pages until active_objs reaches num_objs, should we? > > Since i am using a 8 proc machine and we use per-cpu lists, I was expecting to see up to 8 partial pages maximum. (use and active may differ by 8 * 60 entries). I don't think accounting is broken. I used "crash" to look at each and every slab in the cache and it seem to add up to same number of objects in use. Thanks, Badari -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org