From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair In-Reply-To: <1179349494.2912.62.camel@lappy> Message-ID: References: <20070514131904.440041502@chello.nl> <20070514161224.GC11115@waste.org> <1179164453.2942.26.camel@lappy> <1179170912.2942.37.camel@lappy> <1179250036.7173.7.camel@twins> <1179298771.7173.16.camel@twins> <1179343521.2912.20.camel@lappy> <1179346738.2912.39.camel@lappy> <1179348039.2912.48.camel@lappy> <1179348898.2912.57.camel@lappy> <1179349494.2912.62.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Matt Mackall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Graf , David Miller , Andrew Morton , Daniel Phillips , Pekka Enberg List-ID: On Wed, 16 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > How we know that we are out of trouble? Just try another alloc and see? If > > that is the case then we may be failing allocations after the memory > > situation has cleared up. > No, no, for each regular allocation we retry to populate ->cpu_slab with > a new slab. If that works we're out of the woods and the ->reserve_slab > is cleaned up. Hmmm.. so we could simplify the scheme by storing the last rank somewheres. If the alloc has less priority and we can extend the slab then clear up the situation. If we cannot extend the slab then the alloc must fail. Could you put the rank into the page flags? On 64 bit at least there should be enough space. -- 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: email@kvack.org