From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:26:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] slob: rework freelist handling In-Reply-To: <20070523210612.GI11115@waste.org> Message-ID: References: <20070523052206.GD29045@wotan.suse.de> <20070523061702.GA9449@wotan.suse.de> <20070523071200.GB9449@wotan.suse.de> <20070523183224.GD11115@waste.org> <20070523195824.GF11115@waste.org> <20070523210612.GI11115@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Matt Mackall Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Wed, 23 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 01:02:53PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Wed, 23 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > > > Meanwhile this function is only called from swsusp.c. > > > > NR_SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE is also used in __vm_enough_memory and > > in zone reclaim (well ok thats only NUMA). > > It's NR_SLAB_RECLAIMABLE in __vm_enough_memory. And that is always > zero with SLOB. There aren't any reclaimable slab pages. All dentries and inodes are reclaimable via the shrinkers in vmscan.c. So you are saying that SLOB does not allow dentry and inode reclaim? > SLOB does do UNRECLAIMABLE, true. But there aren't any interesting > users of SLAB_UNRECLAIMABLE that I can see. > That's because there are no slabs! Memory usage shows up here in > exactly the same way that memory usage from get_free_page does. So there seems to be a basic unresolvable issue with SLOB.... -- 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